Slightly OT: How Much Do Free Returns Cost Us?

On 10/31/2018 9:45 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 10/31/18 8:47 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 10/30/2018 6:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 10/30/18 4:55 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/30/2018 11:42 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Apples and Oranges, of course.   The borgs have much greater buying
>>>>>> power, and thus their cost for the same item is less.  Has nothing
>>>>>> to do with shrinkage or return costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus, my original point that it's no "real cost" to us.
>>>>> Because they already have the lowest prices, we don't even notice
>>>>> the cost to us.  Even though we are paying an "inflated price" to
>>>>> cover these things, that price is still lower than many other stores.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They can be lower yet if the abuses and shrinkage could be stopped.
>>>> Nearly $50 billion
>>>>
>>>> http://time.com/money/4829684/shoplifting-fraud-retail-survey/
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the topic of conversation is how much free reruns cost us,
>>> not theft.
>>> That's what I was talking about.
>>>
>>> That article discusses the cost of theft and other fraud, not free
>>> returns or the "abuse" of such, right?
>>>
>>>
>> Some of those returns are theft.  People steal items and come back the
>> next day to return them since it is so easy.  Others use tools and
>> return them, a form of theft.
>
> That's not what the article is talking about and you know it.
>
>

FWIW the cost of returns is built into the price to begin with. It is
one of many costs of doing business.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:28:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 12:49:15 PM UTC-4, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 10/29/18 11:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> > Rambling thoughts...
>> >
>> > We've all bought stuff at Home depot, Lowe's, Amazon, etc. that came with free
>> > returns. Tools, lighting fixtures, all sorts of stuff for our projects.
>> >
>> > Many of these items are packaged in plastic that has been sealed with
>> > e.g. ultrasound, making it impossible to open "neatly". You have to destroy
>> > the packaging to open it, so the product can't go back on the shelf once
>> > returned. (Sometimes they tape it back together, but not usually.)
>> >
>> > I needed some landscape-style spotlights to illuminate the Halloween stuff
>> > in my yard. I won't know what will work best until I try them after dark.
>> > I bought 3 different style of spotlights, know that I can return whatever
>> > doesn't work for me. Whatever I return will have been ripped open and that
>> > has to cost (all of us) something.
>> >
>> > I guess the more stuff a person buys and returns, the better off they are.
>> > At least they are getting something for their money. I pity the po' fool
>> > that always knows exactly what they need and never returns anything. They
>> > are paying the cost for those that "buy to test".
>> >
>>
>> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to offer it to
>> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
>>
>> I'll tell you what the real cost is if you're not careful!
>> You accidentally buy a returned product, e.g. some ceiling fan or
>> lighting fixture, and you're at a client's house installing it and
>> realize that it's missing a bunch of proprietary hardware because the
>> previous purchaser was an incompetent, lazy bastard who didn't put all
>> the bits and pieces back in the box before returning it! And let's face
>> it, the store clerks don't check or even know what to check for when
>> returns come back.
>>
>> So now, you realize that you have to return the previously returned
>> product, but it's half installed already. So you have to either
>> UNinstall what's already been installed, and/or drive back to the store
>> to return it for a new one... or hopefully get a clerk that will let you
>> buy a new, unopened, fan/lighting fixture, take out the bits and pieces
>> that were missing from the first one, then return it for a refund with
>> the parts missing from the first idiot who bought it.
>>
>> So now, I've wasted at least an hour, probably two hours, dealing with
>> this crap handed to me by some dip$h!t I've never met, and there goes
>> the profit I was making on the job. I basically donated my time and
>> lost money because of this imbecile and have to pay my own stupid tax in
>> the process.
>>
>> So yeah, it may cost "all of us" a tiny little bit and we don't even
>> notice, and the corporation absorbs the little bit it costs them and
>> they don't even notice. But I sure as heck notice when a 2hr job turns
>> into a 4hr job and it's serious money taken right out of my pocket.
>>
>> This is why I refuse to buy returned merchandise for client jobs (and
>> most of my own). I've had store employees give me dirty looks and act
>> frustrated when I'm pulling taped together packages or boxes off the
>> racks/shelves until I find a "virgin" one to buy.
>>
>> I tell them "If you can personally guarantee me that this is in perfect
>> working condition with all the parts present and intact, then I'll buy
>> it."
>>
>> I'll never forget the time I bought a handsaw and didn't check it out,
>> first.
>> Whoever bought and returned is must've run that thing through some
>> nails, because it would just skate across the surface of a 2x4. The
>> teeth were almost rounded over. :-)
>
>I can attest to both bastard customers and store clerks that don't check
>items.
>
>I bought a Ridgid wet-dry vac. Looked brand new on the shelf. Tape even
>looked original. I got it home to find about 2" of drywall debris in the
>tub. Used, returned dirty and put back on the shelf. Maybe it was broken,
>I didn't test it. If it was, I apologize to the customer that I just called
>a bastard. I don't apologize to the store clerk who should have checked it
>out.
>
>When I went back to pick up another one, I asked for "something for my
>trouble". They gave me 15% off.
In their drfense, Home Depot has offered me the discount several
times without me having to ask.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:14:01 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:27:58 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
>> >On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> >
>> >> I doubt there any real costs to us.  All the stores have to offer it to
>> >> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>> >
>> >You are also paying for shoplifting.
>>
>> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the
>> idea that a customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying
>> three things knowing you're going to bring two of them back
>> (in a non-salable condition) doesn't seem particularly honest
>> to me. It just raises the cost on everyone for the few people
>> who abuse the store policies. Returning something because it
>> is defective is one thing. Returning because it was a try-n-buy
>> or because the wife didn't like it, is wrong. Almost as wrong
>> as the jerks who buy a new TV before the superbowl and return it
>> the next week.
>
>Have you ever bought something and found that once you got it home it
>didn't fit your needs? What did you do?

Depends on the circumstances. If it doesn't do what is advertised or
work as intended, I'll take it back otherwise I generally eat it. If
it's in saleable condition, including packaging, I'm more apt to
return it.

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 9:53:37 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>=20
> >On 10/30/18 9:27 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> >>>=20
> >>>> I doubt there any real costs to us.=C3=82 All the stores have to
> >>>> offer it to be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to
> >>>> be competitive.
> >>>>=20
> >>>=20
> >>> Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
> >>>=20
> >>> You are also paying for shoplifting.
> >>=20
> >> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that a
> >> customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying three things
> >> knowing you're going to bring two of them back (in a non-salable
> >> condition) doesn't seem particularly honest to me. It just raises the
> >> cost on everyone for the few people who abuse the store policies.
> >> Returning something because it is defective is one thing. Returning
> >> because it was a try-n-buy or because the wife didn't like it, is
> >> wrong. Almost as wrong as the jerks who buy a new TV before the
> >> superbowl and return it the next week.
> >
> >There will always be people who abuse the system, that doesn't mean you=
=20
> >should take away the candy from all the kids because of the one brat.=20
> >But many electronics stores suspend they're return policies on TVs=20
> >around the Superbowl because that particular abuse of the system has=20
> >gotten out of hand.
>=20
> Hence the rise of the "restocking fee", something that really pisses
> me off.
>=20
> >I'm glad these corporations don't see it the way you do.
> >They offer these types of return policies to better serve their=20
> >customers and I, for one, am grateful. Heck, even many tool=20
> >manufacturers, themselves, are offering short term test drives of their=
=20
> >products. "Use it for 30 days and if you're not completely satisfied=20
> >for any reason, return it for a full refund."
> >
> >These companies see the advantages in offering "try-n-buy" or returning=
=20
> >it "because the wife didn't like it." I'm glad they allow test drives=
=20
> >and returns because the "wife didn't like it," or in my specific case,=
=20
> >the client didn't like it.
>=20
> There is a difference between "try and buy" and "free rental".
> >
> >It's a common practice for me to purchase a few different versions of=20
> >something I'm installing for a client and returning the ones they don't=
=20
> >choose. It's also common practice for me to purchase several different=
=20
> >versions of materials, hardware, or fasteners for an installation and=20
> >return the ones I didn't use or need or even "prefer."
>=20
> If they're in saleable condition after, no harm done.
>=20

Which brings us full circle back to my OP. When "they" package something
that can't be returned in saleable condition, it has to cost *something*
when it gets returned.

Here's my exact situation (this time). I needed 3 light fixtures for my
yard. I had no idea which would work best. Is a white 900 lumen led spot=20
going to work or will I need 1100 lumens? What about a red led spot light=
=20
with a wider beam. (Spooky lawn figures)

So I bought 3 of each. I then tried 1 of each - opening them 1 at a time.=
=20
As it turned out, 1 900 white and 2 red spots fit the bill. However, I also
had to try one of the 1100 lumen spots (too bright). So now I'm going to
return a unit that is (probably) not going back on the shelf since I had to
use an angle grinder, jack hammer and a stick of dynamite to get the damn
package open.

Back in the ole days, I would have carefully opened the cardboard box,=20
remembered how it all went back in and returned the item in pristine
condition. In so many cases, you can't do that anymore.

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 12:49:15 PM UTC-4, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 10/29/18 11:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > Rambling thoughts...
> >
> > We've all bought stuff at Home depot, Lowe's, Amazon, etc. that came with free
> > returns. Tools, lighting fixtures, all sorts of stuff for our projects.
> >
> > Many of these items are packaged in plastic that has been sealed with
> > e.g. ultrasound, making it impossible to open "neatly". You have to destroy
> > the packaging to open it, so the product can't go back on the shelf once
> > returned. (Sometimes they tape it back together, but not usually.)
> >
> > I needed some landscape-style spotlights to illuminate the Halloween stuff
> > in my yard. I won't know what will work best until I try them after dark.
> > I bought 3 different style of spotlights, know that I can return whatever
> > doesn't work for me. Whatever I return will have been ripped open and that
> > has to cost (all of us) something.
> >
> > I guess the more stuff a person buys and returns, the better off they are.
> > At least they are getting something for their money. I pity the po' fool
> > that always knows exactly what they need and never returns anything. They
> > are paying the cost for those that "buy to test".
> >
>
> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to offer it to
> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
>
> I'll tell you what the real cost is if you're not careful!
> You accidentally buy a returned product, e.g. some ceiling fan or
> lighting fixture, and you're at a client's house installing it and
> realize that it's missing a bunch of proprietary hardware because the
> previous purchaser was an incompetent, lazy bastard who didn't put all
> the bits and pieces back in the box before returning it! And let's face
> it, the store clerks don't check or even know what to check for when
> returns come back.
>
> So now, you realize that you have to return the previously returned
> product, but it's half installed already. So you have to either
> UNinstall what's already been installed, and/or drive back to the store
> to return it for a new one... or hopefully get a clerk that will let you
> buy a new, unopened, fan/lighting fixture, take out the bits and pieces
> that were missing from the first one, then return it for a refund with
> the parts missing from the first idiot who bought it.
>
> So now, I've wasted at least an hour, probably two hours, dealing with
> this crap handed to me by some dip$h!t I've never met, and there goes
> the profit I was making on the job. I basically donated my time and
> lost money because of this imbecile and have to pay my own stupid tax in
> the process.
>
> So yeah, it may cost "all of us" a tiny little bit and we don't even
> notice, and the corporation absorbs the little bit it costs them and
> they don't even notice. But I sure as heck notice when a 2hr job turns
> into a 4hr job and it's serious money taken right out of my pocket.
>
> This is why I refuse to buy returned merchandise for client jobs (and
> most of my own). I've had store employees give me dirty looks and act
> frustrated when I'm pulling taped together packages or boxes off the
> racks/shelves until I find a "virgin" one to buy.
>
> I tell them "If you can personally guarantee me that this is in perfect
> working condition with all the parts present and intact, then I'll buy
> it."
>
> I'll never forget the time I bought a handsaw and didn't check it out,
> first.
> Whoever bought and returned is must've run that thing through some
> nails, because it would just skate across the surface of a 2x4. The
> teeth were almost rounded over. :-)

I can attest to both bastard customers and store clerks that don't check
items.

I bought a Ridgid wet-dry vac. Looked brand new on the shelf. Tape even
looked original. I got it home to find about 2" of drywall debris in the
tub. Used, returned dirty and put back on the shelf. Maybe it was broken,
I didn't test it. If it was, I apologize to the customer that I just called
a bastard. I don't apologize to the store clerk who should have checked it
out.

When I went back to pick up another one, I asked for "something for my
trouble". They gave me 15% off.

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 11/2/2018 1:13 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> > On 11/2/2018 12:00 PM, Leon wrote:
> >> FWIW the cost of returns is built into the price to begin with.=C2=A0 =
It is=20
> >> one of many costs of doing business.
> >=20
> > That is what this thread has been trying to get people to see.=C2=A0=C2=
=A0 Like=20
> > any of the component costs that are factored into the price of an item;=
=20
> > if the cost of the component increases, the the cost of the item=20
> > increases.=C2=A0 OR if the cost of returns component goes up, then the =
price=20
> > of the item goes up.
> >=20
> > The more returns the higher the component of the price, the higher the=
=20
> > selling price.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Simple economics.
> >=20
> >=20
> Sure, but it is still a cost borne by the consumer. If returns were=20
> restricted, they could sell at lower prices.
>=20
> It is nice that a person can buy 6 Widgets, take them home to see what=20
> looks best and take 5 back. Nice for them, but you and I are paying for=
=20
> that convenience. If they charged a $1 fee for every returned item, few=
=20
> customers would do that.

Fact is, not only do most retailers - online and off- offer free returns,
many are now *advertising* "try before you buy". Granted, at the moment=20
it's mostly related to clothing, footwear and glasses, but I'll bet it (the
advertising) spreads to other products, mainly because it's happening=20
anyway by way of the "free returns"

Amazon Prime Wardrobe, BlackCart, Topshop, Warby Parker, just to name a few=
.

Before our recent vacation SWMBO and I used Amazon Prime Wardrobe to buy=20
some water shoes. We each ordered 3 different styles in 2 different sizes.=
=20
We each found a pair we liked and returned the rest. Each order of the pair=
s=20
came in a single package with all the return paperwork included.=20

Honestly, I don't know how you would buy something like shoes or pants or=
=20
glasses online without the ability to return them for free. If I go into a=
=20
store, I can try on as many pairs as I like - for free. Now many online=20
retailers are making it just as easy. And by packaging multiple items in=20
one shipment, they are saving money on shipping, both ways. If they are=20
going to offer free returns anyway, it makes sense for them to label it as
"try before you buy" and do it as a multiple item order instead of having
the consumer place six individual orders and pay 6 shipping fees "out" and=
=20
5 shipping fees "in".=20

On 10/30/2018 12:53 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>>
>> Have you ever bought something and found that once you got it home it
>> didn't fit your needs? What did you do?
>
> No, can't say that I have. I'm pretty careful what I buy.
>

I recall one time returning an item to Lowes, once to WalMart. Both
were in original package, never opened.

Sure, it can happen, but there are abuses. Especially the jerk that
uses a tool one time and returns it.

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 11:16:43 PM UTC-4, notbob wrote:
> On 11/2/2018 5:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
>
> , I don't know how you would buy something like shoes or pants or
> > glasses online without the ability to return them for free.
>
> One has to look at the alternatives. For instance, Zappos has free
> return shipping on their shoes. BUT, the shoes must never show wear.
> IOW, no wearing the shoes outdoors. This is true for New Balance brand
> shoes, from Zappos (an Amazon company).
>
> If one orders New Balance shoes from New Balance, one can wear the shoes
> for 30 days and and return them free, regardless of wear.
>
> IOW, know all the facts. ;)
>
> nb

Irrelevant to the current discussion.

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:53:54 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
> >On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:27:58 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I doubt there any real costs to us.=C2=A0 All the stores have to offer=
> > it to=20
> >> >> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
> >> >>=20
> >> >
> >> >Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
> >> >
> >> >You are also paying for shoplifting.
> >>=20
> >> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the
> >> idea that a customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying
> >> three things knowing you're going to bring two of them back
> >> (in a non-salable condition) doesn't seem particularly honest
> >> to me. It just raises the cost on everyone for the few people
> >> who abuse the store policies. Returning something because it
> >> is defective is one thing. Returning because it was a try-n-buy
> >> or because the wife didn't like it, is wrong. Almost as wrong
> >> as the jerks who buy a new TV before the superbowl and return it
> >> the next week.
> >
> >Have you ever bought something and found that once you got it home it
> >didn't fit your needs? What did you do?
>
> No, can't say that I have. I'm pretty careful what I buy.

Bullshit.

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-7, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 11/2/2018 1:13 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> > On 11/2/2018 12:00 PM, Leon wrote:
> >> FWIW the cost of returns is built into the price to begin with.=C2=A0 =
It is=20
> >> one of many costs of doing business.


> Sure, but it is still a cost borne by the consumer. If returns were=20
> restricted, they could sell at lower prices.

It's also a part of the feedback that the store gets, that lets them know
what goods ought not be re-ordered. The store NEEDS to see the returns
of unsatisfactory items, to know where the problems are. A good
store won't restock the unsatisfactory junk... but won't necessarily know
that the diaper tape comes unstuck, unless a customer tells 'em.

I've seen/done this part of retail; it's an important part of information f=
low.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 10/30/18 9:27 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>
>>>> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to
>>>> offer it to be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to
>>>> be competitive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>>>
>>> You are also paying for shoplifting.
>>
>> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that a
>> customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying three things
>> knowing you're going to bring two of them back (in a non-salable
>> condition) doesn't seem particularly honest to me. It just raises the
>> cost on everyone for the few people who abuse the store policies.
>> Returning something because it is defective is one thing. Returning
>> because it was a try-n-buy or because the wife didn't like it, is
>> wrong. Almost as wrong as the jerks who buy a new TV before the
>> superbowl and return it the next week.
>
>There will always be people who abuse the system, that doesn't mean you
>should take away the candy from all the kids because of the one brat.
>But many electronics stores suspend they're return policies on TVs
>around the Superbowl because that particular abuse of the system has
>gotten out of hand.

Hence the rise of the "restocking fee", something that really pisses
me off.

>I'm glad these corporations don't see it the way you do.
>They offer these types of return policies to better serve their
>customers and I, for one, am grateful. Heck, even many tool
>manufacturers, themselves, are offering short term test drives of their
>products. "Use it for 30 days and if you're not completely satisfied
>for any reason, return it for a full refund."
>
>These companies see the advantages in offering "try-n-buy" or returning
>it "because the wife didn't like it." I'm glad they allow test drives
>and returns because the "wife didn't like it," or in my specific case,
>the client didn't like it.

There is a difference between "try and buy" and "free rental".
>
>It's a common practice for me to purchase a few different versions of
>something I'm installing for a client and returning the ones they don't
>choose. It's also common practice for me to purchase several different
>versions of materials, hardware, or fasteners for an installation and
>return the ones I didn't use or need or even "prefer."

If they're in saleable condition after, no harm done.

>These corporations who offer these policies to better serve their
>customers certainly are helping me better serve mine and I appreciate it.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:50:57 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 10/30/2018 12:53 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Have you ever bought something and found that once you got it home it
>>> didn't fit your needs? What did you do?
>>
>> No, can't say that I have. I'm pretty careful what I buy.
>>
>
>I recall one time returning an item to Lowes, once to WalMart. Both
>were in original package, never opened.
>
>Sure, it can happen, but there are abuses. Especially the jerk that
>uses a tool one time and returns it.

Even worse, the one who buys a tool, sticks his busted one in the box,
and returns it, or who buys a tool, takes some essential but
non-obvious part, and then returns the rest.

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:11:26 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Rambling thoughts...
> >
> >We've all bought stuff at Home depot, Lowe's, Amazon, etc. that came with free
> >returns. Tools, lighting fixtures, all sorts of stuff for our projects.
> >Many of these items are packaged in plastic that has been sealed with
> >e.g. ultrasound, making it impossible to open "neatly". You have to destroy
> >the packaging to open it, so the product can't go back on the shelf once
> >returned. (Sometimes they tape it back together, but not usually.)
> >I needed some landscape-style spotlights to illuminate the Halloween stuff
> >in my yard. I won't know what will work best until I try them after dark.
> >I bought 3 different style of spotlights, know that I can return whatever
> >doesn't work for me. Whatever I return will have been ripped open and that
> >has to cost (all of us) something.
> >I guess the more stuff a person buys and returns, the better off they are.
> >At least they are getting something for their money. I pity the po' fool
> >that always knows exactly what they need and never returns anything. They
> >are paying the cost for those that "buy to test".
>
>
> Often the returned items < when not defective or damaged >
> are put on a clearance table or offered to employees, at a sweet
> discount.
> A generous return policy indicates that the retailer is serious
> about customer service and about standing behind the products ...

...or, as Mike said, they have to do because everyone else is.

I serious doubt they really "stand behind the products" per se. Have you
bought wood at one of the borgs? If they really cared, they wouldn't force
customers to sort through 75 twisted 2x4's to find 6 straight ones. Well,
straight until they dry out, anyway.


>
> http://www.leevalley.com/en/home/HelpShippingReturns.aspx?pb=1#ReturnExchangeForm
>
> John T.

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 9:56:16 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:14:01 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:27:58 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I doubt there any real costs to us.=C2=A0 All the stores have to of=
fer it to=20
> >> >> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
> >> >>=20
> >> >
> >> >Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
> >> >
> >> >You are also paying for shoplifting.
> >>=20
> >> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the
> >> idea that a customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying
> >> three things knowing you're going to bring two of them back
> >> (in a non-salable condition) doesn't seem particularly honest
> >> to me. It just raises the cost on everyone for the few people
> >> who abuse the store policies. Returning something because it
> >> is defective is one thing. Returning because it was a try-n-buy
> >> or because the wife didn't like it, is wrong. Almost as wrong
> >> as the jerks who buy a new TV before the superbowl and return it
> >> the next week.
> >
> >Have you ever bought something and found that once you got it home it
> >didn't fit your needs? What did you do?
>=20
> Depends on the circumstances. If it doesn't do what is advertised or
> work as intended, I'll take it back otherwise I generally eat it. If
> it's in saleable condition, including packaging, I'm more apt to
> return it.

Define "work as intended". See my post from a few minutes ago.=20

When you don't know if it will fit your needs until you've tried it,=20
and *they* packaged it in such a manner that the consumer has to=20
destroy the packaging to get it open, is that the consumer's fault that
it is unsalable when returned?

Remember to good ole days of cardboard boxes or a simple price tag?

-MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>On 10/30/18 9:14 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to offer
>>> it to be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be
>>> competitive.
>>>
>>
>> Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>>
>> You are also paying for shoplifting.
>
>
>When I say "real" cost, I mean it's probably not something we'd notice
>if it weren't there.
>People complain about these costs being passed on to the consumer like
>it's some evil plot. It's an expense for the business. All expenses
>get passed onto the consumer. That's how it works.
>
>The funny part is when you find some local mom-n-pop that doesn't do
>returns (are they still any?) their price for whatever is always higher.

Apples and Oranges, of course. The borgs have much greater buying
power, and thus their cost for the same item is less. Has nothing
to do with shrinkage or return costs.

I don't understand how you can defend such dishonest practices
by consumers.

On 10/31/2018 10:45 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 10/31/18 8:47 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 10/30/2018 6:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 10/30/18 4:55 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/30/2018 11:42 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Apples and Oranges, of course.   The borgs have much greater buying
>>>>>> power, and thus their cost for the same item is less.  Has nothing
>>>>>> to do with shrinkage or return costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus, my original point that it's no "real cost" to us.
>>>>> Because they already have the lowest prices, we don't even notice
>>>>> the cost to us.  Even though we are paying an "inflated price" to
>>>>> cover these things, that price is still lower than many other stores.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They can be lower yet if the abuses and shrinkage could be stopped.
>>>> Nearly $50 billion
>>>>
>>>> http://time.com/money/4829684/shoplifting-fraud-retail-survey/
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the topic of conversation is how much free reruns cost us,
>>> not theft.
>>> That's what I was talking about.
>>>
>>> That article discusses the cost of theft and other fraud, not free
>>> returns or the "abuse" of such, right?
>>>
>>>
>> Some of those returns are theft.  People steal items and come back the
>> next day to return them since it is so easy.  Others use tools and
>> return them, a form of theft.
>
> That's not what the article is talking about and you know it.
>
>

And you know there is a real cost for returns and consumers are paying it.


https://retailnext.net/en/blog/the-real-cost-of-returns-for-retailers/
Retailers face a major challenge. Consumers expect free returns, and
inconvenient returns deter 80% of shoppers according to a ComScore
study. However, retailers are struggling to offer this because they
can’t absorb the cost into their bottom line.

https://www.retaildive.com/news/getting-tough-on-returns-is-hurting-retailers/520790/

https://appriss.com/retail/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/12/2017_Consumer-Returns-in-the-Retail-Industry-Report.pdf

Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
>On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>> I doubt there any real costs to us.  All the stores have to offer it to
>> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
>>
>
>Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>
>You are also paying for shoplifting.

Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the
idea that a customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying
three things knowing you're going to bring two of them back
(in a non-salable condition) doesn't seem particularly honest
to me. It just raises the cost on everyone for the few people
who abuse the store policies. Returning something because it
is defective is one thing. Returning because it was a try-n-buy
or because the wife didn't like it, is wrong. Almost as wrong
as the jerks who buy a new TV before the superbowl and return it
the next week.

On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

> I doubt there any real costs to us.  All the stores have to offer it to
> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
>

Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.

You are also paying for shoplifting.

-MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>On 10/31/18 8:47 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 10/30/2018 6:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 10/30/18 4:55 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/30/2018 11:42 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Apples and Oranges, of course.   The borgs have much greater buying
>>>>>> power, and thus their cost for the same item is less.  Has nothing
>>>>>> to do with shrinkage or return costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus, my original point that it's no "real cost" to us.  Because
>>>>> they already have the lowest prices, we don't even notice the cost
>>>>> to us.  Even though we are paying an "inflated price" to cover these
>>>>> things, that price is still lower than many other stores.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They can be lower yet if the abuses and shrinkage could be stopped.
>>>> Nearly $50 billion
>>>>
>>>> http://time.com/money/4829684/shoplifting-fraud-retail-survey/
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the topic of conversation is how much free reruns cost us,
>>> not theft.
>>> That's what I was talking about.
>>>
>>> That article discusses the cost of theft and other fraud, not free
>>> returns or the "abuse" of such, right?
>>>
>>>
>> Some of those returns are theft.  People steal items and come back the
>> next day to return them since it is so easy.  Others use tools and
>> return them, a form of theft.
>
>That's not what the article is talking about and you know it.
>

Not sure why you're so eager to defend "buy stuff on spec then
returning in a non-salable form".

Forget the article and go to the source.

https://nrf.com/resources/retail-library/national-retail-security-survey-2017

On 11/2/2018 5:05 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 11/2/18 1:08 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 11/2/2018 1:13 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2018 12:00 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> FWIW the cost of returns is built into the price to begin with.  It
>>>> is one of many costs of doing business.
>>>
>>> That is what this thread has been trying to get people to see.   Like
>>> any of the component costs that are factored into the price of an
>>> item; if the cost of the component increases, the the cost of the
>>> item increases.  OR if the cost of returns component goes up, then
>>> the price of the item goes up.
>>>
>>> The more returns the higher the component of the price, the higher
>>> the selling price.   Simple economics.
>>>
>>>
>> Sure, but it is still a cost borne by the consumer.  If returns were
>> restricted, they could sell at lower prices.
>>
>> It is nice that a person can buy 6 Widgets, take them home to see what
>> looks best and take 5 back.  Nice for them, but you and I are paying
>> for that convenience.  If they charged a $1 fee for every returned
>> item, few customers would do that.
>
> True.  And those customers would go to the store that offers that
> service to attract and keep more customers.
> And the store that charged a buck for it would soon be out of business.
>
>
Not if they offered better prices. Some of us rarely return stuff and
would rather have the savings up front. I've probably had 4 returns in
my adult life. About 4 years ago I did take something (unopened) back
to Lowes.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:02:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 10/30/18 8:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/30/18 9:27 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to
>>>>>> offer it to be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to
>>>>>> be competitive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are also paying for shoplifting.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that a
>>>> customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying three things
>>>> knowing you're going to bring two of them back (in a non-salable
>>>> condition) doesn't seem particularly honest to me. It just raises the
>>>> cost on everyone for the few people who abuse the store policies.
>>>> Returning something because it is defective is one thing. Returning
>>>> because it was a try-n-buy or because the wife didn't like it, is
>>>> wrong. Almost as wrong as the jerks who buy a new TV before the
>>>> superbowl and return it the next week.
>>>
>>> There will always be people who abuse the system, that doesn't mean you
>>> should take away the candy from all the kids because of the one brat.
>>> But many electronics stores suspend they're return policies on TVs
>>> around the Superbowl because that particular abuse of the system has
>>> gotten out of hand.
>>
>> Hence the rise of the "restocking fee", something that really pisses
>> me off.
>>
>>> I'm glad these corporations don't see it the way you do.
>>> They offer these types of return policies to better serve their
>>> customers and I, for one, am grateful. Heck, even many tool
>>> manufacturers, themselves, are offering short term test drives of their
>>> products. "Use it for 30 days and if you're not completely satisfied
>>> for any reason, return it for a full refund."
>>>
>>> These companies see the advantages in offering "try-n-buy" or returning
>>> it "because the wife didn't like it." I'm glad they allow test drives
>>> and returns because the "wife didn't like it," or in my specific case,
>>> the client didn't like it.
>>
>> There is a difference between "try and buy" and "free rental".
>>>
>>> It's a common practice for me to purchase a few different versions of
>>> something I'm installing for a client and returning the ones they don't
>>> choose. It's also common practice for me to purchase several different
>>> versions of materials, hardware, or fasteners for an installation and
>>> return the ones I didn't use or need or even "prefer."
>>
>> If they're in saleable condition after, no harm done.
>>
>>> These corporations who offer these policies to better serve their
>>> customers certainly are helping me better serve mine and I appreciate it.
>>
>
>All you have to do is do a quick search of my usenet posts to see that I
>am totally opposed to people who abuse the system and use free return
>policies and a free rental system.

I didn't call you a thief. Just stating my position.

>I've seen tools at the clearance end-caps of Home Depot that were used
>and abused and obviously victims of the free rental abuse practice.
>That's BS and I'm on record as calling out that kind of crap.

No problem here.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:27:45 -0400, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 10/29/2018 10:16 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:08:18 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I doubt there any real costs to us.  All the stores have to offer it to
>>>> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
>>> While there may be no obvious cost for the return, items that are
>>> returned would end up in the inventory shrinkage category. While not
>>> shrinkage, as in disappearance from the store, it is unsaleable inventory.
>>>
>>> Inventory shrinkage is factored into the cost of doing business, and is
>>> factored into the sales price of all items. ie if a store experiences
>>> 5% shrinkage of their inventory, the sale price would be the cost of
>>> the material, the cost of labor, cost of shipping, the fixed cost of the
>>> facilities, plus 5% for shrinkage, plus all of the sales tax. For a
>>> large company like Lowes, the local store may not even be aware of how
>>> the returns affect the sales prices as the item price is calculated by
>>> the front office.
>>>
>>> So if a store is experiencing a 5% shrinkage rate, you can assume that
>>> 5% of the sales price of an item is to cover shrinkage.
>>
>> Obviously it's not done on a per-store basis. The Borg's prices are
>> uniform, at least for most of the US.
>>
>> Shrinkage is a little different than returns, though. Interestingly,
>> big-box stores have contracts with their suppliers that so draconian
>> that they would make even Dracula blush. They're required to take
>> back, and credit, whatever the BORG sends them. An acquaintance was
>> in the electronics business and looked into supplying a big box store.
>> According to the contract, if they sent him a train-load of broken
>> lawn mowers, he'd have to accept them and give them a credit for them.
>> He decided there were better places to sell his widgets.
>>
>Whether it is the store the supplier, or his supplier, some body absorbs
>the cost, and tacks it on to all future orders. The contracts just bury
>the cost deeper.

It's actually worse than that but the point is the same. Buying
something with the intention of returning it after use, is theft.

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 2:15:46 PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:28:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 12:49:15 PM UTC-4, -MIKE- wrote:
> >> On 10/29/18 11:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> > Rambling thoughts...
> >> >
> >> > We've all bought stuff at Home depot, Lowe's, Amazon, etc. that came with free
> >> > returns. Tools, lighting fixtures, all sorts of stuff for our projects.
> >> >
> >> > Many of these items are packaged in plastic that has been sealed with
> >> > e.g. ultrasound, making it impossible to open "neatly". You have to destroy
> >> > the packaging to open it, so the product can't go back on the shelf once
> >> > returned. (Sometimes they tape it back together, but not usually.)
> >> >
> >> > I needed some landscape-style spotlights to illuminate the Halloween stuff
> >> > in my yard. I won't know what will work best until I try them after dark.
> >> > I bought 3 different style of spotlights, know that I can return whatever
> >> > doesn't work for me. Whatever I return will have been ripped open and that
> >> > has to cost (all of us) something.
> >> >
> >> > I guess the more stuff a person buys and returns, the better off they are.
> >> > At least they are getting something for their money. I pity the po' fool
> >> > that always knows exactly what they need and never returns anything. They
> >> > are paying the cost for those that "buy to test".
> >> >
> >>
> >> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to offer it to
> >> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
> >>
> >> I'll tell you what the real cost is if you're not careful!
> >> You accidentally buy a returned product, e.g. some ceiling fan or
> >> lighting fixture, and you're at a client's house installing it and
> >> realize that it's missing a bunch of proprietary hardware because the
> >> previous purchaser was an incompetent, lazy bastard who didn't put all
> >> the bits and pieces back in the box before returning it! And let's face
> >> it, the store clerks don't check or even know what to check for when
> >> returns come back.
> >>
> >> So now, you realize that you have to return the previously returned
> >> product, but it's half installed already. So you have to either
> >> UNinstall what's already been installed, and/or drive back to the store
> >> to return it for a new one... or hopefully get a clerk that will let you
> >> buy a new, unopened, fan/lighting fixture, take out the bits and pieces
> >> that were missing from the first one, then return it for a refund with
> >> the parts missing from the first idiot who bought it.
> >>
> >> So now, I've wasted at least an hour, probably two hours, dealing with
> >> this crap handed to me by some dip$h!t I've never met, and there goes
> >> the profit I was making on the job. I basically donated my time and
> >> lost money because of this imbecile and have to pay my own stupid tax in
> >> the process.
> >>
> >> So yeah, it may cost "all of us" a tiny little bit and we don't even
> >> notice, and the corporation absorbs the little bit it costs them and
> >> they don't even notice. But I sure as heck notice when a 2hr job turns
> >> into a 4hr job and it's serious money taken right out of my pocket.
> >>
> >> This is why I refuse to buy returned merchandise for client jobs (and
> >> most of my own). I've had store employees give me dirty looks and act
> >> frustrated when I'm pulling taped together packages or boxes off the
> >> racks/shelves until I find a "virgin" one to buy.
> >>
> >> I tell them "If you can personally guarantee me that this is in perfect
> >> working condition with all the parts present and intact, then I'll buy
> >> it."
> >>
> >> I'll never forget the time I bought a handsaw and didn't check it out,
> >> first.
> >> Whoever bought and returned is must've run that thing through some
> >> nails, because it would just skate across the surface of a 2x4. The
> >> teeth were almost rounded over. :-)
> >
> >I can attest to both bastard customers and store clerks that don't check
> >items.
> >
> >I bought a Ridgid wet-dry vac. Looked brand new on the shelf. Tape even
> >looked original. I got it home to find about 2" of drywall debris in the
> >tub. Used, returned dirty and put back on the shelf. Maybe it was broken,
> >I didn't test it. If it was, I apologize to the customer that I just called
> >a bastard. I don't apologize to the store clerk who should have checked it
> >out.
> >
> >When I went back to pick up another one, I asked for "something for my
> >trouble". They gave me 15% off.
> In their drfense, Home Depot has offered me the discount several
> times without me having to ask.

And they may have done that in this case, given the chance. However, I like
to improve my chances by asking.

I ask for upgrades when I rent a car, I ask for upgrades when I buy a plane
ticket, I ask for upgrades when I stay in a hotel. Sometimes it works,
sometimes it doesn't. I've never been "downgraded" when I've asked, so there
is only upside potential. The worst they've ever said is "Sorry, no."

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:27:58 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> >
> >> I doubt there any real costs to us.=C2=A0 All the stores have to offer=
it to=20
> >> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
> >>=20
> >
> >Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
> >
> >You are also paying for shoplifting.
>=20
> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the
> idea that a customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying
> three things knowing you're going to bring two of them back
> (in a non-salable condition) doesn't seem particularly honest
> to me. It just raises the cost on everyone for the few people
> who abuse the store policies. Returning something because it
> is defective is one thing. Returning because it was a try-n-buy
> or because the wife didn't like it, is wrong. Almost as wrong
> as the jerks who buy a new TV before the superbowl and return it
> the next week.

Have you ever bought something and found that once you got it home it
didn't fit your needs? What did you do?

On 11/2/2018 1:13 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 11/2/2018 12:00 PM, Leon wrote:
>> FWIW the cost of returns is built into the price to begin with.  It is
>> one of many costs of doing business.
>
> That is what this thread has been trying to get people to see.   Like
> any of the component costs that are factored into the price of an item;
> if the cost of the component increases, the the cost of the item
> increases.  OR if the cost of returns component goes up, then the price
> of the item goes up.
>
> The more returns the higher the component of the price, the higher the
> selling price.   Simple economics.
>
>
Sure, but it is still a cost borne by the consumer. If returns were
restricted, they could sell at lower prices.

It is nice that a person can buy 6 Widgets, take them home to see what
looks best and take 5 back. Nice for them, but you and I are paying for
that convenience. If they charged a $1 fee for every returned item, few
customers would do that.

On 11/2/2018 5:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


, I don't know how you would buy something like shoes or pants or
> glasses online without the ability to return them for free.

One has to look at the alternatives. For instance, Zappos has free
return shipping on their shoes. BUT, the shoes must never show wear.
IOW, no wearing the shoes outdoors. This is true for New Balance brand
shoes, from Zappos (an Amazon company).

If one orders New Balance shoes from New Balance, one can wear the shoes
for 30 days and and return them free, regardless of wear.

IOW, know all the facts. ;)

nb

On 11/3/2018 7:27 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

> I question a business model where there is a built-in 30% to 40% return
> rate.  Shipping cost alone for online sales becomes a large percentage
> of the cost of doing business.

I suspect Amazon gets a shipping discount from USPS, much like Netflix.

I recently purchased a set of Tombow Duel-Brush Pens (primary) from
Amazon and they cost me $16.99USD. That is $10 cheaper than almost
everyone.

https://tinyurl.com/y95qczto

I've also recently purchased an HP hand calculator. Usual price was up
around $150. I paid a measly $56.00USD. That's almost 2/3rds off the
regular price! How could they do that w/0 a shipping costs break?
That or that particular item was being discontinued.

I also usta have Amazon's Prime. It was cheap, no doubt about it. BUT,
it encouraged a person to "buy stuff", so I no longer have it. I recall
ordering something that only cost $2. Sure enough, it was on my
doorstep in less than 48 hrs. Did I need it? Kinda, but not really. I
did it mostly to see if Prime was true. Apparently, it is.

Have I had issues w/ Amazon. Sure, who hasn't. I once bought a banjo
instrument stand. It had an almost "perfect" rating, five stars from
over 100 ppl. They musta been all bogus. The "instrument stand" I
received was pure junk. Perfect rating? Not likely.

I notice Amazon has re-instituted its $25.00USD "free shipping" policy. ;)

nb

On 11/3/2018 8:43 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> I have no problem with returning defective items but some take it too
> far.  Some stores are cracking down on abuse.


Yep. Costco is a good example.

Costco usta have "no questions asked" return policy on their TVs. Ppl
started "abusing" the policy by buying a TV, then returning it when a
new model came out. Costco hadda change their return policy. It was in
"all the papers". ;)

nb

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 19:15:35 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 9:56:16 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:14:01 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:27:58 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> >> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I doubt there any real costs to us.  All the stores have to offer it to
>> >> >> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>> >> >
>> >> >You are also paying for shoplifting.
>> >>
>> >> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the
>> >> idea that a customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying
>> >> three things knowing you're going to bring two of them back
>> >> (in a non-salable condition) doesn't seem particularly honest
>> >> to me. It just raises the cost on everyone for the few people
>> >> who abuse the store policies. Returning something because it
>> >> is defective is one thing. Returning because it was a try-n-buy
>> >> or because the wife didn't like it, is wrong. Almost as wrong
>> >> as the jerks who buy a new TV before the superbowl and return it
>> >> the next week.
>> >
>> >Have you ever bought something and found that once you got it home it
>> >didn't fit your needs? What did you do?
>>
>> Depends on the circumstances. If it doesn't do what is advertised or
>> work as intended, I'll take it back otherwise I generally eat it. If
>> it's in saleable condition, including packaging, I'm more apt to
>> return it.
>
>Define "work as intended". See my post from a few minutes ago.

That's a harder call. I wouldn't have returned the opened fixtures.
Those that weren't, no problem.
>
>When you don't know if it will fit your needs until you've tried it,
>and *they* packaged it in such a manner that the consumer has to
>destroy the packaging to get it open, is that the consumer's fault that
>it is unsalable when returned?

IMO, yes. If I opened it, I wouldn't return it unless it was
"defective" in manufacture or design. For instance, a spotlight
fixture that wouldn't hold position would get returned without a
thought. One that was "warm white" rather than "cool white" wouldn't
because that's on me. I should have known better.
>
>Remember to good ole days of cardboard boxes or a simple price tag?

The cost of "shrinkage" is bullet-proof "shrink-wrap".

The lack of price tags does piss me off. Nothing seems to be put even
near its shelf tag and they're impossible to read anyway.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:11:26 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rambling thoughts...
>
>We've all bought stuff at Home depot, Lowe's, Amazon, etc. that came with free
>returns. Tools, lighting fixtures, all sorts of stuff for our projects.
>
>Many of these items are packaged in plastic that has been sealed with
>e.g. ultrasound, making it impossible to open "neatly". You have to destroy
>the packaging to open it, so the product can't go back on the shelf once
>returned. (Sometimes they tape it back together, but not usually.)
>
>I needed some landscape-style spotlights to illuminate the Halloween stuff
>in my yard. I won't know what will work best until I try them after dark.
>I bought 3 different style of spotlights, know that I can return whatever
>doesn't work for me. Whatever I return will have been ripped open and that
>has to cost (all of us) something.
>
>I guess the more stuff a person buys and returns, the better off they are.
>At least they are getting something for their money. I pity the po' fool
>that always knows exactly what they need and never returns anything. They
>are paying the cost for those that "buy to test".


In my business (computers) the stores have to sell the "open box"
stuff at a discount - which definitely costs them - and I don't know
how many times (but WAY too many) I've bought something at Home Despot
that has obviously been returnrd,only to find there was a good reason
for the return. It was no good - and went right back on the shelf - to
be returned again - and possibly AGAIN.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:08:18 -0400, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>> I doubt there any real costs to us.  All the stores have to offer it to
>> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
>While there may be no obvious cost for the return, items that are
>returned would end up in the inventory shrinkage category. While not
>shrinkage, as in disappearance from the store, it is unsaleable inventory.
>
>Inventory shrinkage is factored into the cost of doing business, and is
>factored into the sales price of all items. ie if a store experiences
>5% shrinkage of their inventory, the sale price would be the cost of
>the material, the cost of labor, cost of shipping, the fixed cost of the
>facilities, plus 5% for shrinkage, plus all of the sales tax. For a
>large company like Lowes, the local store may not even be aware of how
>the returns affect the sales prices as the item price is calculated by
>the front office.
>
>So if a store is experiencing a 5% shrinkage rate, you can assume that
>5% of the sales price of an item is to cover shrinkage.

Obviously it's not done on a per-store basis. The Borg's prices are
uniform, at least for most of the US.

Shrinkage is a little different than returns, though. Interestingly,
big-box stores have contracts with their suppliers that so draconian
that they would make even Dracula blush. They're required to take
back, and credit, whatever the BORG sends them. An acquaintance was
in the electronics business and looked into supplying a big box store.
According to the contract, if they sent him a train-load of broken
lawn mowers, he'd have to accept them and give them a credit for them.
He decided there were better places to sell his widgets.

On 11/2/2018 8:51 PM, whit3rd wrote:

>
>> Sure, but it is still a cost borne by the consumer. If returns were
>> restricted, they could sell at lower prices.
>
> It's also a part of the feedback that the store gets, that lets them know
> what goods ought not be re-ordered. The store NEEDS to see the returns
> of unsatisfactory items, to know where the problems are. A good
> store won't restock the unsatisfactory junk... but won't necessarily know
> that the diaper tape comes unstuck, unless a customer tells 'em.
>
> I've seen/done this part of retail; it's an important part of information flow.
>

Sure, if it turns out a product is junk and they can decide to eliminate
it. The real added cost is the people that take home 6 colors of an
item so they cad decide what looks best or a much worse scenario, the
guy that buys a tool for one job, uses it, then returns it.

I have no problem with returning defective items but some take it too
far. Some stores are cracking down on abuse.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:55:35 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 10/30/2018 11:42 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>> Apples and Oranges, of course.   The borgs have much greater buying
>>> power, and thus their cost for the same item is less.  Has nothing
>>> to do with shrinkage or return costs.
>>>
>>
>> And thus, my original point that it's no "real cost" to us.  Because
>> they already have the lowest prices, we don't even notice the cost to
>> us.  Even though we are paying an "inflated price" to cover these
>> things, that price is still lower than many other stores.
>>
>
>They can be lower yet if the abuses and shrinkage could be stopped.
>Nearly $50 billion
>
>http://time.com/money/4829684/shoplifting-fraud-retail-survey/

The problem is, what does it cause to reduce it? Reducing it isn't
free.

On 10/31/2018 9:45 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 10/31/18 8:47 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 10/30/2018 6:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 10/30/18 4:55 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/30/2018 11:42 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Apples and Oranges, of course.   The borgs have much greater buying
>>>>>> power, and thus their cost for the same item is less.  Has nothing
>>>>>> to do with shrinkage or return costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus, my original point that it's no "real cost" to us.
>>>>> Because they already have the lowest prices, we don't even notice
>>>>> the cost to us.  Even though we are paying an "inflated price" to
>>>>> cover these things, that price is still lower than many other stores.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They can be lower yet if the abuses and shrinkage could be stopped.
>>>> Nearly $50 billion
>>>>
>>>> http://time.com/money/4829684/shoplifting-fraud-retail-survey/
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the topic of conversation is how much free reruns cost us,
>>> not theft.
>>> That's what I was talking about.
>>>
>>> That article discusses the cost of theft and other fraud, not free
>>> returns or the "abuse" of such, right?
>>>
>>>
>> Some of those returns are theft.  People steal items and come back the
>> next day to return them since it is so easy.  Others use tools and
>> return them, a form of theft.
>
> That's not what the article is talking about and you know it.
>
>

FWIW the cost of returns is built into the price to begin with. It is
one of many costs of doing business.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:11:26 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rambling thoughts...
>
>We've all bought stuff at Home depot, Lowe's, Amazon, etc. that came with free
>returns. Tools, lighting fixtures, all sorts of stuff for our projects.
>Many of these items are packaged in plastic that has been sealed with
>e.g. ultrasound, making it impossible to open "neatly". You have to destroy
>the packaging to open it, so the product can't go back on the shelf once
>returned. (Sometimes they tape it back together, but not usually.)
>I needed some landscape-style spotlights to illuminate the Halloween stuff
>in my yard. I won't know what will work best until I try them after dark.
>I bought 3 different style of spotlights, know that I can return whatever
>doesn't work for me. Whatever I return will have been ripped open and that
>has to cost (all of us) something.
>I guess the more stuff a person buys and returns, the better off they are.
>At least they are getting something for their money. I pity the po' fool
>that always knows exactly what they need and never returns anything. They
>are paying the cost for those that "buy to test".


Often the returned items < when not defective or damaged >
are put on a clearance table or offered to employees, at a sweet
discount.
A generous return policy indicates that the retailer is serious
about customer service and about standing behind the products ...

http://www.leevalley.com/en/home/HelpShippingReturns.aspx?pb=1#ReturnExchangeForm

John T.

On 10/30/2018 11:42 AM, -MIKE- wrote:

>> Apples and Oranges, of course.   The borgs have much greater buying
>> power, and thus their cost for the same item is less.  Has nothing
>> to do with shrinkage or return costs.
>>
>
> And thus, my original point that it's no "real cost" to us.  Because
> they already have the lowest prices, we don't even notice the cost to
> us.  Even though we are paying an "inflated price" to cover these
> things, that price is still lower than many other stores.
>

They can be lower yet if the abuses and shrinkage could be stopped.
Nearly $50 billion

http://time.com/money/4829684/shoplifting-fraud-retail-survey/

On 10/29/18 11:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> Rambling thoughts...
>
> We've all bought stuff at Home depot, Lowe's, Amazon, etc. that came with free
> returns. Tools, lighting fixtures, all sorts of stuff for our projects.
>
> Many of these items are packaged in plastic that has been sealed with
> e.g. ultrasound, making it impossible to open "neatly". You have to destroy
> the packaging to open it, so the product can't go back on the shelf once
> returned. (Sometimes they tape it back together, but not usually.)
>
> I needed some landscape-style spotlights to illuminate the Halloween stuff
> in my yard. I won't know what will work best until I try them after dark.
> I bought 3 different style of spotlights, know that I can return whatever
> doesn't work for me. Whatever I return will have been ripped open and that
> has to cost (all of us) something.
>
> I guess the more stuff a person buys and returns, the better off they are.
> At least they are getting something for their money. I pity the po' fool
> that always knows exactly what they need and never returns anything. They
> are paying the cost for those that "buy to test".
>

I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to offer it to
be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.

I'll tell you what the real cost is if you're not careful!
You accidentally buy a returned product, e.g. some ceiling fan or
lighting fixture, and you're at a client's house installing it and
realize that it's missing a bunch of proprietary hardware because the
previous purchaser was an incompetent, lazy bastard who didn't put all
the bits and pieces back in the box before returning it! And let's face
it, the store clerks don't check or even know what to check for when
returns come back.

So now, you realize that you have to return the previously returned
product, but it's half installed already. So you have to either
UNinstall what's already been installed, and/or drive back to the store
to return it for a new one... or hopefully get a clerk that will let you
buy a new, unopened, fan/lighting fixture, take out the bits and pieces
that were missing from the first one, then return it for a refund with
the parts missing from the first idiot who bought it.

So now, I've wasted at least an hour, probably two hours, dealing with
this crap handed to me by some dip$h!t I've never met, and there goes
the profit I was making on the job. I basically donated my time and
lost money because of this imbecile and have to pay my own stupid tax in
the process.

So yeah, it may cost "all of us" a tiny little bit and we don't even
notice, and the corporation absorbs the little bit it costs them and
they don't even notice. But I sure as heck notice when a 2hr job turns
into a 4hr job and it's serious money taken right out of my pocket.

This is why I refuse to buy returned merchandise for client jobs (and
most of my own). I've had store employees give me dirty looks and act
frustrated when I'm pulling taped together packages or boxes off the
racks/shelves until I find a "virgin" one to buy.

I tell them "If you can personally guarantee me that this is in perfect
working condition with all the parts present and intact, then I'll buy
it."

I'll never forget the time I bought a handsaw and didn't check it out,
first.
Whoever bought and returned is must've run that thing through some
nails, because it would just skate across the surface of a 2x4. The
teeth were almost rounded over. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 10/29/18 12:28 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 12:49:15 PM UTC-4, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 10/29/18 11:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> Rambling thoughts...
>>>
>>> We've all bought stuff at Home depot, Lowe's, Amazon, etc. that came with free
>>> returns. Tools, lighting fixtures, all sorts of stuff for our projects.
>>>
>>> Many of these items are packaged in plastic that has been sealed with
>>> e.g. ultrasound, making it impossible to open "neatly". You have to destroy
>>> the packaging to open it, so the product can't go back on the shelf once
>>> returned. (Sometimes they tape it back together, but not usually.)
>>>
>>> I needed some landscape-style spotlights to illuminate the Halloween stuff
>>> in my yard. I won't know what will work best until I try them after dark.
>>> I bought 3 different style of spotlights, know that I can return whatever
>>> doesn't work for me. Whatever I return will have been ripped open and that
>>> has to cost (all of us) something.
>>>
>>> I guess the more stuff a person buys and returns, the better off they are.
>>> At least they are getting something for their money. I pity the po' fool
>>> that always knows exactly what they need and never returns anything. They
>>> are paying the cost for those that "buy to test".
>>>
>>
>> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to offer it to
>> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
>>
>> I'll tell you what the real cost is if you're not careful!
>> You accidentally buy a returned product, e.g. some ceiling fan or
>> lighting fixture, and you're at a client's house installing it and
>> realize that it's missing a bunch of proprietary hardware because the
>> previous purchaser was an incompetent, lazy bastard who didn't put all
>> the bits and pieces back in the box before returning it! And let's face
>> it, the store clerks don't check or even know what to check for when
>> returns come back.
>>
>> So now, you realize that you have to return the previously returned
>> product, but it's half installed already. So you have to either
>> UNinstall what's already been installed, and/or drive back to the store
>> to return it for a new one... or hopefully get a clerk that will let you
>> buy a new, unopened, fan/lighting fixture, take out the bits and pieces
>> that were missing from the first one, then return it for a refund with
>> the parts missing from the first idiot who bought it.
>>
>> So now, I've wasted at least an hour, probably two hours, dealing with
>> this crap handed to me by some dip$h!t I've never met, and there goes
>> the profit I was making on the job. I basically donated my time and
>> lost money because of this imbecile and have to pay my own stupid tax in
>> the process.
>>
>> So yeah, it may cost "all of us" a tiny little bit and we don't even
>> notice, and the corporation absorbs the little bit it costs them and
>> they don't even notice. But I sure as heck notice when a 2hr job turns
>> into a 4hr job and it's serious money taken right out of my pocket.
>>
>> This is why I refuse to buy returned merchandise for client jobs (and
>> most of my own). I've had store employees give me dirty looks and act
>> frustrated when I'm pulling taped together packages or boxes off the
>> racks/shelves until I find a "virgin" one to buy.
>>
>> I tell them "If you can personally guarantee me that this is in perfect
>> working condition with all the parts present and intact, then I'll buy
>> it."
>>
>> I'll never forget the time I bought a handsaw and didn't check it out,
>> first.
>> Whoever bought and returned is must've run that thing through some
>> nails, because it would just skate across the surface of a 2x4. The
>> teeth were almost rounded over. :-)
>
> I can attest to both bastard customers and store clerks that don't check
> items.
>
> I bought a Ridgid wet-dry vac. Looked brand new on the shelf. Tape even
> looked original. I got it home to find about 2" of drywall debris in the
> tub. Used, returned dirty and put back on the shelf. Maybe it was broken,
> I didn't test it. If it was, I apologize to the customer that I just called
> a bastard. I don't apologize to the store clerk who should have checked it
> out.
>
> When I went back to pick up another one, I asked for "something for my
> trouble". They gave me 15% off.
>

A shop vac can be ruined by running sheetrock dust through its normal
filters.
There's a good chance the person knew this when they returned it.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
> I doubt there any real costs to us.  All the stores have to offer it to
> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
While there may be no obvious cost for the return, items that are
returned would end up in the inventory shrinkage category. While not
shrinkage, as in disappearance from the store, it is unsaleable inventory.

Inventory shrinkage is factored into the cost of doing business, and is
factored into the sales price of all items. ie if a store experiences
5% shrinkage of their inventory, the sale price would be the cost of
the material, the cost of labor, cost of shipping, the fixed cost of the
facilities, plus 5% for shrinkage, plus all of the sales tax. For a
large company like Lowes, the local store may not even be aware of how
the returns affect the sales prices as the item price is calculated by
the front office.

So if a store is experiencing a 5% shrinkage rate, you can assume that
5% of the sales price of an item is to cover shrinkage.



--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre

On 10/29/2018 10:16 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:08:18 -0400, Keith Nuttle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>
>>> I doubt there any real costs to us.  All the stores have to offer it to
>>> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
>> While there may be no obvious cost for the return, items that are
>> returned would end up in the inventory shrinkage category. While not
>> shrinkage, as in disappearance from the store, it is unsaleable inventory.
>>
>> Inventory shrinkage is factored into the cost of doing business, and is
>> factored into the sales price of all items. ie if a store experiences
>> 5% shrinkage of their inventory, the sale price would be the cost of
>> the material, the cost of labor, cost of shipping, the fixed cost of the
>> facilities, plus 5% for shrinkage, plus all of the sales tax. For a
>> large company like Lowes, the local store may not even be aware of how
>> the returns affect the sales prices as the item price is calculated by
>> the front office.
>>
>> So if a store is experiencing a 5% shrinkage rate, you can assume that
>> 5% of the sales price of an item is to cover shrinkage.
>
> Obviously it's not done on a per-store basis. The Borg's prices are
> uniform, at least for most of the US.
>
> Shrinkage is a little different than returns, though. Interestingly,
> big-box stores have contracts with their suppliers that so draconian
> that they would make even Dracula blush. They're required to take
> back, and credit, whatever the BORG sends them. An acquaintance was
> in the electronics business and looked into supplying a big box store.
> According to the contract, if they sent him a train-load of broken
> lawn mowers, he'd have to accept them and give them a credit for them.
> He decided there were better places to sell his widgets.
>
Whether it is the store the supplier, or his supplier, some body absorbs
the cost, and tacks it on to all future orders. The contracts just bury
the cost deeper.

--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre

On 10/30/18 9:14 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to offer
>> it to be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be
>> competitive.
>>
>
> Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>
> You are also paying for shoplifting.


When I say "real" cost, I mean it's probably not something we'd notice
if it weren't there.
People complain about these costs being passed on to the consumer like
it's some evil plot. It's an expense for the business. All expenses
get passed onto the consumer. That's how it works.

The funny part is when you find some local mom-n-pop that doesn't do
returns (are they still any?) their price for whatever is always higher.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 10/30/18 9:27 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to
>>> offer it to be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to
>>> be competitive.
>>>
>>
>> Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>>
>> You are also paying for shoplifting.
>
> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that a
> customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying three things
> knowing you're going to bring two of them back (in a non-salable
> condition) doesn't seem particularly honest to me. It just raises the
> cost on everyone for the few people who abuse the store policies.
> Returning something because it is defective is one thing. Returning
> because it was a try-n-buy or because the wife didn't like it, is
> wrong. Almost as wrong as the jerks who buy a new TV before the
> superbowl and return it the next week.

There will always be people who abuse the system, that doesn't mean you
should take away the candy from all the kids because of the one brat.
But many electronics stores suspend they're return policies on TVs
around the Superbowl because that particular abuse of the system has
gotten out of hand.

I'm glad these corporations don't see it the way you do.
They offer these types of return policies to better serve their
customers and I, for one, am grateful. Heck, even many tool
manufacturers, themselves, are offering short term test drives of their
products. "Use it for 30 days and if you're not completely satisfied
for any reason, return it for a full refund."

These companies see the advantages in offering "try-n-buy" or returning
it "because the wife didn't like it." I'm glad they allow test drives
and returns because the "wife didn't like it," or in my specific case,
the client didn't like it.

It's a common practice for me to purchase a few different versions of
something I'm installing for a client and returning the ones they don't
choose. It's also common practice for me to purchase several different
versions of materials, hardware, or fasteners for an installation and
return the ones I didn't use or need or even "prefer."

These corporations who offer these policies to better serve their
customers certainly are helping me better serve mine and I appreciate it.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 10/30/18 10:09 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 10/30/18 9:14 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>
>>>> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to offer
>>>> it to be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be
>>>> competitive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>>>
>>> You are also paying for shoplifting.
>>
>>
>> When I say "real" cost, I mean it's probably not something we'd notice
>> if it weren't there.
>> People complain about these costs being passed on to the consumer like
>> it's some evil plot. It's an expense for the business. All expenses
>> get passed onto the consumer. That's how it works.
>>
>> The funny part is when you find some local mom-n-pop that doesn't do
>> returns (are they still any?) their price for whatever is always higher.
>
> Apples and Oranges, of course. The borgs have much greater buying
> power, and thus their cost for the same item is less. Has nothing
> to do with shrinkage or return costs.
>

And thus, my original point that it's no "real cost" to us. Because
they already have the lowest prices, we don't even notice the cost to
us. Even though we are paying an "inflated price" to cover these
things, that price is still lower than many other stores.


> I don't understand how you can defend such dishonest practices
> by consumers.
>

I didn't. Show me where I did.
I'm defending the stores for offering better service to their customers.
How on earth do you see that as defending dishonest practices by consumers?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 10/30/2018 11:01 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> The funny part is when you find some local mom-n-pop that doesn't do
> returns (are they still any?) their price for whatever is always higher.
Scale, It cost more per item for a small business than it does for a
large business.

Assume it takes $1000/month to cover of a system with the cost of the
salaries for a two person staff and the rent for a 1000 square feet of
selling space

The cost of that system spread over 10 items sold /month will be about
$100/item. If you sell 1000/items / month the cost will be $1/per item
sold. This is in addition to the cost of the item.


--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre

On 10/30/2018 11:42 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 10/30/18 10:09 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 10/30/18 9:14 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I doubt there any real costs to us.  All the stores have to offer
>>>>> it to be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be
>>>>> competitive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>>>>
>>>> You are also paying for shoplifting.
>>>
>>>
>>> When I say "real" cost, I mean it's probably not something we'd notice
>>> if it weren't there.
>>> People complain about these costs being passed on to the consumer like
>>> it's some evil plot.  It's an expense for the business.  All expenses
>>> get passed onto the consumer.  That's how it works.
>>>
>>> The funny part is when you find some local mom-n-pop that doesn't do
>>> returns (are they still any?) their price for whatever is always higher.
>>
>> Apples and Oranges, of course.   The borgs have much greater buying
>> power, and thus their cost for the same item is less.  Has nothing
>> to do with shrinkage or return costs.
>>
>
> And thus, my original point that it's no "real cost" to us.  Because
> they already have the lowest prices, we don't even notice the cost to
> us.  Even though we are paying an "inflated price" to cover these
> things, that price is still lower than many other stores.
>
>
>> I don't understand how you can defend such dishonest practices
>> by consumers.
>>
>
> I didn't.  Show me where I did.
> I'm defending the stores for offering better service to their customers.
> How on earth do you see that as defending dishonest practices by consumers?
>
>
BOTTOM LINE: some where in the production, distribution, and sales
system the cost of returns are factored into the cost of the item,
Otherwise someone does not make the money to continue handling the item,
and the item disappears from the market.

--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre

On 10/30/18 11:53 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:27:58 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I doubt there any real costs to us.=C2=A0 All the stores have to offer=
>> it to=20
>>>>> be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to be competitive.
>>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>> Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>>>>
>>>> You are also paying for shoplifting.
>>> =20
>>> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the
>>> idea that a customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying
>>> three things knowing you're going to bring two of them back
>>> (in a non-salable condition) doesn't seem particularly honest
>>> to me. It just raises the cost on everyone for the few people
>>> who abuse the store policies. Returning something because it
>>> is defective is one thing. Returning because it was a try-n-buy
>>> or because the wife didn't like it, is wrong. Almost as wrong
>>> as the jerks who buy a new TV before the superbowl and return it
>>> the next week.
>>
>> Have you ever bought something and found that once you got it home it
>> didn't fit your needs? What did you do?
>
> No, can't say that I have. I'm pretty careful what I buy.
>

Bullshit.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 10/30/18 4:55 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/30/2018 11:42 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>> Apples and Oranges, of course.   The borgs have much greater buying
>>> power, and thus their cost for the same item is less.  Has nothing
>>> to do with shrinkage or return costs.
>>>
>>
>> And thus, my original point that it's no "real cost" to us.  Because
>> they already have the lowest prices, we don't even notice the cost to
>> us.  Even though we are paying an "inflated price" to cover these
>> things, that price is still lower than many other stores.
>>
>
> They can be lower yet if the abuses and shrinkage could be stopped.
> Nearly $50 billion
>
> http://time.com/money/4829684/shoplifting-fraud-retail-survey/


I believe the topic of conversation is how much free reruns cost us, not
theft.
That's what I was talking about.

That article discusses the cost of theft and other fraud, not free
returns or the "abuse" of such, right?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 10/30/18 8:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/18 9:27 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to
>>>>> offer it to be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to
>>>>> be competitive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>>>>
>>>> You are also paying for shoplifting.
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that a
>>> customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying three things
>>> knowing you're going to bring two of them back (in a non-salable
>>> condition) doesn't seem particularly honest to me. It just raises the
>>> cost on everyone for the few people who abuse the store policies.
>>> Returning something because it is defective is one thing. Returning
>>> because it was a try-n-buy or because the wife didn't like it, is
>>> wrong. Almost as wrong as the jerks who buy a new TV before the
>>> superbowl and return it the next week.
>>
>> There will always be people who abuse the system, that doesn't mean you
>> should take away the candy from all the kids because of the one brat.
>> But many electronics stores suspend they're return policies on TVs
>> around the Superbowl because that particular abuse of the system has
>> gotten out of hand.
>
> Hence the rise of the "restocking fee", something that really pisses
> me off.
>
>> I'm glad these corporations don't see it the way you do.
>> They offer these types of return policies to better serve their
>> customers and I, for one, am grateful. Heck, even many tool
>> manufacturers, themselves, are offering short term test drives of their
>> products. "Use it for 30 days and if you're not completely satisfied
>> for any reason, return it for a full refund."
>>
>> These companies see the advantages in offering "try-n-buy" or returning
>> it "because the wife didn't like it." I'm glad they allow test drives
>> and returns because the "wife didn't like it," or in my specific case,
>> the client didn't like it.
>
> There is a difference between "try and buy" and "free rental".
>>
>> It's a common practice for me to purchase a few different versions of
>> something I'm installing for a client and returning the ones they don't
>> choose. It's also common practice for me to purchase several different
>> versions of materials, hardware, or fasteners for an installation and
>> return the ones I didn't use or need or even "prefer."
>
> If they're in saleable condition after, no harm done.
>
>> These corporations who offer these policies to better serve their
>> customers certainly are helping me better serve mine and I appreciate it.
>

All you have to do is do a quick search of my usenet posts to see that I
am totally opposed to people who abuse the system and use free return
policies and a free rental system.

I've seen tools at the clearance end-caps of Home Depot that were used
and abused and obviously victims of the free rental abuse practice.
That's BS and I'm on record as calling out that kind of crap.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 10/30/18 9:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:02:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/18 8:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/30/18 9:27 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2018 12:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I doubt there any real costs to us. All the stores have to
>>>>>>> offer it to be competitive, AND they have to have low prices to
>>>>>>> be competitive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and if you go around noon you get a free lunch too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are also paying for shoplifting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that a
>>>>> customer should try to shaft the retailer. Buying three things
>>>>> knowing you're going to bring two of them back (in a non-salable
>>>>> condition) doesn't seem particularly honest to me. It just raises the
>>>>> cost on everyone for the few people who abuse the store policies.
>>>>> Returning something because it is defective is one thing. Returning
>>>>> because it was a try-n-buy or because the wife didn't like it, is
>>>>> wrong. Almost as wrong as the jerks who buy a new TV before the
>>>>> superbowl and return it the next week.
>>>>
>>>> There will always be people who abuse the system, that doesn't mean you
>>>> should take away the candy from all the kids because of the one brat.
>>>> But many electronics stores suspend they're return policies on TVs
>>>> around the Superbowl because that particular abuse of the system has
>>>> gotten out of hand.
>>>
>>> Hence the rise of the "restocking fee", something that really pisses
>>> me off.
>>>
>>>> I'm glad these corporations don't see it the way you do.
>>>> They offer these types of return policies to better serve their
>>>> customers and I, for one, am grateful. Heck, even many tool
>>>> manufacturers, themselves, are offering short term test drives of their
>>>> products. "Use it for 30 days and if you're not completely satisfied
>>>> for any reason, return it for a full refund."
>>>>
>>>> These companies see the advantages in offering "try-n-buy" or returning
>>>> it "because the wife didn't like it." I'm glad they allow test drives
>>>> and returns because the "wife didn't like it," or in my specific case,
>>>> the client didn't like it.
>>>
>>> There is a difference between "try and buy" and "free rental".
>>>>
>>>> It's a common practice for me to purchase a few different versions of
>>>> something I'm installing for a client and returning the ones they don't
>>>> choose. It's also common practice for me to purchase several different
>>>> versions of materials, hardware, or fasteners for an installation and
>>>> return the ones I didn't use or need or even "prefer."
>>>
>>> If they're in saleable condition after, no harm done.
>>>
>>>> These corporations who offer these policies to better serve their
>>>> customers certainly are helping me better serve mine and I appreciate it.
>>>
>>
>> All you have to do is do a quick search of my usenet posts to see that I
>> am totally opposed to people who abuse the system and use free return
>> policies and a free rental system.
>
> I didn't call you a thief. Just stating my position.
>
>> I've seen tools at the clearance end-caps of Home Depot that were used
>> and abused and obviously victims of the free rental abuse practice.
>> That's BS and I'm on record as calling out that kind of crap.
>
> No problem here.
>

No, I get it.
I'm just responding to others who might take my words out of context or
twist them to fit their agenda.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 10/31/18 8:47 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/30/2018 6:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 10/30/18 4:55 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2018 11:42 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Apples and Oranges, of course.   The borgs have much greater buying
>>>>> power, and thus their cost for the same item is less.  Has nothing
>>>>> to do with shrinkage or return costs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus, my original point that it's no "real cost" to us.  Because
>>>> they already have the lowest prices, we don't even notice the cost
>>>> to us.  Even though we are paying an "inflated price" to cover these
>>>> things, that price is still lower than many other stores.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They can be lower yet if the abuses and shrinkage could be stopped.
>>> Nearly $50 billion
>>>
>>> http://time.com/money/4829684/shoplifting-fraud-retail-survey/
>>
>>
>> I believe the topic of conversation is how much free reruns cost us,
>> not theft.
>> That's what I was talking about.
>>
>> That article discusses the cost of theft and other fraud, not free
>> returns or the "abuse" of such, right?
>>
>>
> Some of those returns are theft.  People steal items and come back the
> next day to return them since it is so easy.  Others use tools and
> return them, a form of theft.

That's not what the article is talking about and you know it.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com