article on "excessive returns"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp–dyn/articles/A30908–2004Nov6.html
Woman is not allowed to return unused garments because she reached a
limit allowed for such.
The problem I have with such limits is the formulae used are secret.
You only know you've hit it after it's too late. I can understand why
retailers would not want to publicize such limits, but there has to be
some middle ground to keep legitimate shoppers happy.
Leigh
––
Consequences, shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich. – D. Duck

Leigh writes:
It was only a matter of time, and I'm glad retailers are finally paying closer
attention to it.
The shopper in the article sounds like the type that buys for the thrill of the
purchase, lets the items sit in the bag until the high subsides, then returns
them for another fix of buying something else. I have a friend who did this
for years, and it seems it was an addiction she couldn't control until her
priorities in life shifted.
Linda

This is an addiction but the underlying problem could be depression. My
mother–in–law was very ill with terminal breast cancer. After she passed away
we were going through her home and she had boxes upon boxes of unopened
purchases she had bought from home shopping. They were stashed in her walk–in
bedroom closet and we could hardly open the door there was so much. Most of
them we could not return because of the 30 day return policy.
Mare

Mare writes:
My mother–in–law did this too, prior to her death. For her I think it was a
combination of depression, dementia, and loneliness. For a couple of years,
she ordered from HSN on a daily basis. The people hocking this junk were her
'friends', friends who gave her inside information (i.e. cubic zirconia is very
rare and hard to come by). I dropped by her house daily and there'd be 2–3
boxes on her doorstep each day. Then she lost interest in HSN when she was
seduced by Publisher's Clearing House, convinced if she placed enough orders
she'd win the $1,000,000. It was so sad and she quickly went through her
savings. She almost lost her home in all this, before we took over her
finances. Publisher's Clearing House preys on the elderly, and it just makes
me sick. I don't know how Dick Clark and Ed McMahon sleep at night.
Linda

Well said and I don't know how these people can sleep at night either. I took
some time to watch the shopping channels after mum had passed away to see how
they were baiting people. For the most part when these lonely, elderly ladies
call in they act as if the host is a personal friend. And the hosts go right
along with it. Often the callers will say, 'Well, my I've spent so much money
with you that the creditors are knocking on my front door." To that the hosts
say, "yes, but you're happy, aren't you?" It's absurd. Taking advantage of
the elderly in any way is about as low as it gets.
Thanks for sharing.
Mare

x–no–archive:yes
There's also a site called "www.bugmenot.com"
where you can borrow registration names and passwords that will access a wide
variety of publications.

I'm seriously considering boycotting Express after reading that article.
What kind of customer service is that . . . refusing a return when they
supposedly have a liberal return policy?!
I return things all the time for a number of different reasons, and if a store
ever pulled that on me, I would not only make a scene until my account was
credited, I would never buy a thing in that store again.
Shari

Lily writes:
My sentiments exactly.
Shari

On 07 Nov 2004 14:04:41 GMT, julan...@aol.com (Linda) wrote:
Yeah, terrible stuff. My sister–in–law's mother got into this same
thing with Publisher's Clearing House. She was really convinced they
were going to show up at her door any day with the $1M. Like you, my
brother and sister–in–law were able to take over her finances. Now
her Alzheimers is too advanced for her to do anything like this
anyway.
Chris

23.12369.00000...@mb–m28.aol.com>
I think you missed the point:
1. the store doesn't have a "liberal return policy"––the policy had been
changed and there were signs throughout the store noting the change; and
2. this store––and indeed any store––has the right to refuse any return or to
curb returns when they become excessive on the part of any individual (or,
indeed, to refuse to take any returns at all).
Furthermore, if this woman was buying a lot of clothes and returning them on a
regular basis, even with the tags attached (for it is possible to buy a machine
which allows you to put those plastic tags on garments), then she fit the
profile of a wardrober. At the very least she was abusing the return policy.
As for losing her business––it probably saves the store money not to have to
keep ringing up, ringing back, and replacing merchandise, not to mention the
lost (permanent) sales b/c those items aren't on the rack for people who really
do want to buy them.
I also think some of the high pitch of this discussion is because some people
don't understand that the issue isn't the occassional returner––it's the
habitual or chronic returner. The secondary problem is that shopping has
become some kind of game for bored people.
––
Julie P.
"MADE FOR TELEVISION."––Owen Meany

No, I didn't miss the point. The woman bought something at Express, tried to
return it (in accordance with the store's return policy), and they refused to
accept it based on her number of previous returns. I don't remember seeing
anything about them warning her when she made the purchase that it was a "final
sale."
Where did you see that in the article? They refused to accept the return
because they arbitrarily decided that she returned too much.
No, the store doesn't have a right to refuse any return –– not if its policy
says otherwise. If I buy something with the understanding that I can return it
in 30 days, and I decide on the 29th day that it's not going to work (for
whatever reason) I'm going to bring it back, and they damn well better credit
my account.
You have no idea how much money that woman might be spending at that store on
the merchandise she doesn't return. If she's in the store that often and she's
made as many returns as she has, then she's probably shopping there on a
regular basis and spending a lot of money.
And who decides this? You?
Shari

eigh Melton wrote:
I emailed the article to myself and pasted it here to save people the
trouble of registering at the site.
Priscilla
–––
p...@midway.uchicago.edu "Here comes the most beautiful woman in
puppetland!"
–––
Some Shoppers Find Fewer Happy Returns
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Darlene Salerno considers herself a loyal customer of the Express
clothing chain, shelling out roughly $2,000 for its trendy outfits each
year for the past decade. On a recent shopping trip, she bought a tank
top, a button–down shirt and some khaki pants, but realized when she got
home that she had similar items in her closet. So a few days later she
took them back to the store. She presented the items, the receipt and
waited for her money.
Instead, the saleswoman handed her a slip of paper that said "RETURN
DECLINED" and told her to call the toll–free number at the bottom for
more information. She phoned and was informed her account showed
"excessive" returns.
As the holiday shopping season gets into full swing, a number of major
retailers –– including KB Toys and Sports Authority, according to store
personnel –– are rolling out electronic systems that weigh the number of
returns and exchanges a person has made, the dollar value of the items,
and the dates of the transactions to decide whether a consumer should be
granted another. The systems are designed to catch shoplifters and those
who "wardrobe," wearing clothes and then returning them for a full refund.
But Salerno, 26, a receptionist at a Manhattan financial firm, said
she falls under neither category. She returns things often because she
buys things often. She said she feels she has done nothing wrong –– the
clothes were never worn and the tags were still attached –– but that she
was treated like a criminal.
"I'm embarrassed to go into the store," Salerno said. "I love their
clothes, but I'm afraid to shop there now."
As more personal information is collected into databases, computers
have been handed increasing power to make decisions about our everyday
lives. The technological systems aim to solve costly and important
business problems, but the proliferation of these "electronic
blacklists" has alarmed consumer and privacy advocacy groups who say
many databases have incomplete, incorrect or misleading information.
"Technology has made it cheap to do all kinds of surveillance and
watch over people and make sure they obey the rules. But when a system
makes a mistake, what can you do?" said Richard Smith, an Internet
security and privacy consultant.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 gives consumers rights
concerning information used to make decisions about credit, insurance,
employment or other services. Other federal laws impose disclosure
requirements on information collected by the medical establishment or
the financial services industry. But increasingly, companies are
creating databases not envisioned by such regulations, and there is
debate about which laws, if any, apply.
Peggy Twohig, assistant director of the Division of Financial
Practices of the Federal Trade Commission, which administers the Fair
Credit Act, said whether a particular information system is covered by
it "depends on the particular facts of each system, and can be a complex
legal question."
Among the databases being created is one for landlords that purports
to list renters who have been evicted. Others claim to identify "known"
spammers. St. Louis–based Talx Corp., meanwhile, has compiled more than
100 million employee records that contain names of companies, dates of
employment and job titles. More than 1,000 firms, including American
Airlines, FedEx Corp., Hewlett–Packard Co., Kmart Corp., Marriott
International Inc., Microsoft Corp. and PepsiCo Inc., make use of the
service to speed along the screening process for potential new hires.
But workers worry that some companies, for instance, use the word
"inactive" to refer to people who have left the company for any reason;
other companies use "terminated," a word that some employees have argued
has negative connotations. Perhaps the most common complaint is that job
titles are incorrect. One woman, Shelli Isiminger of Dover, Del., said
one of her former employers reported that she was a "supervisor" rather
than a "call center manager," a big distinction in her industry and one
she worries has cost her jobs.
"To have a discrepancy, to make it seem like I inflated my title, is a
kiss of death," she said.
Mike Smith, vice president for marketing at Talx, said that the
company tries to facilitate communication between employees and
employers but that it considers itself an agent for the employers and
that any changes to records must be made through them.
Another company, DoctorsKnowUs.com, created a database of people who
have filed malpractice claims as a resource for doctors. John S. Jones,
a radiologist from Kaufman, Tex., who spent seven years compiling the
information for the site, said he took it offline after some patients
complained that it was impossible to differentiate between those with
legitimate claims and those with frivolous ones, and that all could be
denied care by those using the list. Since then, however, Jones has
received hundreds of e–mails and phone calls from doctors who want the
site back online, and he said in an interview that he is considering
resurrecting it.
"It was public information. . . . I was simply aggregating it," he
said. "The site was mischaracterized as a blacklist."
A spokesman for Limited Brands Inc., which owns the Express stores,
declined to answer questions about its computerized return authorization
system. Mark R. Hilinski, a co–founder of the Return Exchange Inc., an
Irvine, Calif.–based company that provides technology for the retail
chain, said the computer denies returns to 1 to 2 percent of customers
at most stores. He said even though the database is not subject to the
requirements of the Fair Credit Act, his company provides consumers a
free copy of their report when they ask and it gives them an opportunity
to correct inaccurate data. He added that very few have disputed the
information.
"The system is often highly reliable. We have a very fair system to
make us aware of any discrepancies they think they found in their
report," said Hilinski,

7944.00000...@mb–m07.aol.com>
From: jjjjju...@aol.comehither (Jjjjjulie)
From: slee...@aol.com (Sleepi8)
23.12369.00000...@mb–m28.aol.com>
I'm seriously considering boycotting Express after reading that article.
What kind of customer service is that . . . refusing a return when they
supposedly have a liberal return policy?!
I return things all the time for a number of different reasons, and if a
store
ever pulled that on me, I would not only make a scene until my account was
credited, I would never buy a thing in that store again.
I think you missed the point:
They don't have to warn her, although actually they did when the store
advertised its new return policy.
1. the store doesn't have a "liberal return policy"––the policy had been
changed and there were signs throughout the store noting the change; and
From the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp–dyn/articles/A30908–2004Nov6.html
––––––––––––––––––
Retailers like the Limited are fighting back against such high–tech fraud with
high–tech defenses. Sometime in the spring, consumers and Express workers say,
the store began replacing the black placards
denoting its return policy to note that it was using the Return Exchange
service. The new signs advertise the "Express Guarantee" and say consumers
have up to 60 days to return items. However, the company's return policy also
notes that it uses an "industry wide" system to authorize returns and that
"under certain circumstances we reserve the right to deny returns."
–––––––––––––––
2. this store––and indeed any store––has the right to refuse any return or
to
curb returns when they become excessive on the part of any individual (or,
indeed, to refuse to take any returns at all).
it
I do believe that in every case like this, the retailer has the final word.
I'm not sure the consumer has a leg to stand on here, especially as I am pretty
sure that every return policy, except those which explictly say "we'll take it
back/no questions asked", has something written into it which gives the
retailer an out.
Furthermore, if this woman was buying a lot of clothes and returning them on
aregular basis, even with the tags attached (for it is possible to buy a
machine
which allows you to put those plastic tags on garments), then she fit the
profile of a wardrober. At the very least she was abusing the return policy.
As for losing her business––it probably saves the store money not to have to
keep ringing up, ringing back, and replacing merchandise, not to mention the
lost (permanent) sales b/c those items aren't on the rack for people who
really do want to buy them.
she's
Which, in the end, could mean absolutely nothing. If she's spending $100/week
and then returning $75/week, then with the cost of processing the initial sale,
the return, and tracking the merchandise and putting it back on the floor, the
store is probably losing money. People who spend a lot and return a lot are
not good customers.
I also think some of the high pitch of this discussion is because some people
don't understand that the issue isn't the occassional returner––it's the
habitual or chronic returner.
Why would I be the one to decide this? Obviously it's for the retailer to
decide.
Returning goods––things you purchased which were undamaged and complete––to a
store* is a privilege, not a right. It's my responsibility as a consumer to
use good judgment when I buy things. Personally I'm happy if a retailer takes
steps to ensure that the vast majority of us won't lose this perk because a few
people (I think the article said 1–2%) won't show the same qualities.
*Obviously for these purposes I'm talking about things purchased in a b/m
store.
––
Julie P.
"MADE FOR TELEVISION."––Owen Meany

"Jjjjjulie" <jjjjju...@aol.comehither> wrote in message
news:20041110074709.08186.00000...@mb–m05.aol.com...
with
say,
consumers
also
that
To say "under certain circumstances" returns without specifying further what
factors would be considered is akin to not allowing returns at all, from the
consumer's standpoint. How would one know when and if a return would be
denied? I would be very judicious shopping there and I'm sure that's exactly
the result Express is looking for.
Claire

In article <20041110001506.07944.00000...@mb–m07.aol.com>,
slee...@aol.com (Sleepi8) wrote:
Why shouldn't she? You think you're a better judge? I agree with her.
Stacy

In article <2vhsnaF2hetd...@uni–berlin.de>,
"Claire in SF" <clairi...@aol.com> wrote:
I wouldn't hesitate to ask what "under certain circumstances" means when
making the purchase, in that case. I return things so infrequently that
I still ask if something is returnable even though it says so right on
the sales slip. I tend to be more concerned about whether an item, even
unworn, can be returned or not if it comes in sealed packaging. While I
almost never return a purchase, I still want to know that the option is
available.
Stacy

Believe me, I have absolutely no interest in judging anyone with regard to
returns.
Last time I checked she wasn't paying my bills so I really couldn't care less
what she thinks about the number of returns I make in a year. Nor do I care
whether she thinks the returns are justified according to her "holier than
thou" criteria.
If a store doesn't want to deal with returns, let them change their policy to
final sale on all purchases and notify their customers of the change. Then,
they can sit back and watch the majority of their customers disappear or go out
of business, whichever comes first.
Shari

From: Stacy Ferguson stac...@stacyef.net writes:
Whoa. I wasn't talking about you, Shari. I was discussing the example of the
shopper in the Washington Post article and also the issue of returns,
generally. In that the nature of this forum is that we give our opinions, I
offered mine. You're free to agree with it, or disagree with it, or ignore it.
You're also free, technically, to take it personally, but if you do so, you are
reading––and responding to––what I wrote entirely out of context. If you've
decided, for whatever reason, to identify with the woman in the story, that's
out of my control. I know very little about you and I never equated you with
that woman.
out
Again, the issue at hand in the article was not retailers not wanting to deal
with returns at all or ever again. It was how one retailer in particular was
cracking down on returns it deemed excessive. This is within its rights. Just
as it is within a consumer's rights not to patronize stores she deems to
have unreasonable return policies.
––
Julie P.
"MADE FOR TELEVISION."––Owen Meany

In <20041110170650.21876.00000...@mb–m14.aol.com> Jjjjjulie wrote:
I wonder if there are any legalities in retail when it comes to returns?
I'd assume faulty products would be covered, but just for returning for
the sake of returning because a change of mind.
––
Cheers
Dennis
Remove 'Elle–Kabong' to reply

In <20041110131143.07211.00000...@mb–m10.aol.com> Sleepi8 wrote:
I guess the bottom line is that the store is entitled to whatever return
policies they wish to impose. But of course those policies should be
displayed/made known at time of purchase, not after...
––
Cheers
Dennis
Remove 'Elle–Kabong' to reply

In article <20041110131143.07211.00000...@mb–m10.aol.com>,
slee...@aol.com (Sleepi8) wrote:
From: Stacy Ferguson stac...@stacyef.net writes:
I see. You don't want to judge people who make returns frequently but
you want to go extreme and adopt a policy that punishes everyone instead
because that's more fair. I'm certainly glad that most people are unlike
you because it would mean that all privileges for anything would be
terminated because there are always people who abuse them.
Stacy

Which they won't....I personally keep most of my purchases and wouldn't dream
of being a serial returner. I once had a friend who would use beauty items and
perfumes for 6 months or so, then return them claiming "allergies". Of course
the retailer took them back, afraid of being sued or something. She did this
over and over and didn't pay for stuff for a few years. Notice I said I *once
had a friend* – that was one of major reasons we're not friends any longer.

acertaing...@aol.comforzevon (Acertaingirl) wrote in message news:<20041111053119.12009.00000...@mb–m16.aol.com>...
If a store doesn't want to deal with returns, let them change their policy to
final sale on all purchases and notify their customers of the change. Then,
they can sit back and watch the majority of their customers disappear or go
out
of business, whichever comes first.<<
But isn't their a real difference between *using* a store's return
policy, and *abusing* it. IMHO, its the difference between (a) buying
a sweater that you genuinely thought you'd wear, taking it home,
realizing that it doesn't match that skirt as well as you thought it
would, or that its a lot itchier than you realized, or even that you
just don't like it; and (b) buying 35 sweaters knowing that you're
eventually going to keep 1 (but wanting to make sure that they have
your size in the one you'll eventually select), holding them all until
they're on final markdown at the store at 90% off, then returning all
of them and repurchasing the one that you want. Maybe the latter does
not violate the published return policies of the store but, to me, it
*feels* wrong.
I don't see the conflict between a store advertising that it has a
liberal return policy –– knowing that for 90% of its shoppers, that
means a certain rate of return –– and the store making a decision to
modify that policy in certain circumstances where, based upon its
tracking data, it has reason to believe that the person may have
shoplifted goods (multiple returns without receipts) or is a
*wardrober* (lots of sales with a pattern of repeated returns, perhaps
with some evidence of wear), or just that the pattern of returns makes
that shopper *unprofitable* for the store. The problem is when the
store invokes that policy without a *last chance* notice to the
shopper, eg a letter stating that no further returns will be accepted.
That seems to be what happened in the article under discussion.
(OTOH, note that she was able to give the items to a friend, who
returned them for her. This points out the biggest flaw in the system
–– cash shoppers. Stores can't track how much they spend, only how
much they return. So they're likely to be more impacted than others.
And I assume that this woman paid cash, since it was easy for her
friend to return the items.)
There are stores that I will frequent –– or avoid –– due to return
policies. I once ordered a watch from a jeweler. Several weeks
later, they called to say that they could not get the watch, and told
me to come in to pick out a different one. I requested a credit to my
charge card for the amount of my deposit. They then told me that they
had a *store credit only* policy. Well, OK, if I want to RETURN the
product; but they took my money and never gave me my watch! (I
enlisted the assistance of my credit card company to fight that one.)
You can bet that I'll never return to that store. I also rarely
purchase gifts at stores with 14–day return policies, as it may be
difficult for the recipient to get to the store in time (esp as I tend
to purchase gifts early).
Im sum, I just don't believe that it is –– or should be –– *if the
store doesn't like the fact that I hold on to thousands of dollars of
items worth of items for months at a time, and return them only when
they are unsalable, then they shouldn't accept returns at all*
Barbara

The problem is when the
Thank you . . . finally someone with reading comprehension skills.
If the woman's return was in compliance with store policy, it should have been
accepted no matter how many previous returns she's made. If they're tracking
her purchases and returns and have decided they're excessive, they should let
her know before she purchases another item in the store. This way, she can
decide whether she wants to continue shopping there with all her purchases
being "final sale."
A store DOES NOT have the right to refuse a return that is in compliance with
its stated policy.
Shari

In article <20041114184838.23249.00000...@mb–m03.aol.com>,
slee...@aol.com (Sleepi8) wrote:
From: mom_2_...@hotmail.com
Yes, it DOES. Do not confuse your own personal view of right and wrong
with a store's legal rights.
Express does NOT make the decision on a return. It contracts a company
to do it for them. They (and most other retails) also contract check
clearing companies. Their policy is to accept checks for payment. If it
is rejected through Telecheck (or whichever company they're using) for
whatever reason (bad checks, excessive numbers of checks in one day,
etc.) are you demanding that they accept them anyway? It's the same
thing.
Stacy

For AFers in the Dallas area. While I was getting ready for work, I saw
a promo for the 10 pm news on the local Channel 5 NBC affiliate. They're
running a story on "Blacklisted Shoppers" and the promo gave the hint
that some shoppers have been blacklisted from making purchases at some
DFW stores. It wouldn't surprise me if it ties into the excessive return
rates for individuals. I'll probably check it out.
Stacy

Stacy Ferguson <stac...@stacyef.net> wrote in message news:<stacyef–D0E8B9.11085611112...@news.newsguy.com>...
Interesting how the story seemed to apply to Express, just like the
article. The buyer they followed, Lauren, made 4 successful returns
to Express (with tags, receipts and unworn merchandise) but was denied
on the 5th return. Express is using the company The Return Exchange
which says that their company "identifies approx. 1% of consumers
whose return behaviors mimic return fraud". The Return Exchange will
not disclose what companies use their services but you can find out if
the company is tracking your returns with a phone call at (800)
652–2331.
Amanda

With the reduction of sales help in department stores, and the
limitations of available fitting rooms, it's quite possible to find
yourself standing in a 20 person line outside the one open fitting room
on the floor on a sale day.
This happens regularly at Macy's and Filene's basement during swimsuit
and lingerie sales, and coupon sale days.
Even on non–sale days, at certain times, waits are excessively long.
Under these circumstances I have absolutely no compunction about buying
everything I'm considering trying on, and returning what doesn't fit or
which I don't like.
If a store saves money by maintaining inadequate personnel and
facilities, why should I be a docile little shopper concerned about what
my returns cost them? They obviously don't give a damn about what their
greed costs ME.
Lily

Well said, Lily. I think it's extremely naive to think that any savings stores
are recouping with more stringent return policies will be passed on to the
customers.

On 13 Nov 2004 17:31:02 GMT, TMEMEDIA wrote:
I think the level of competition in the market will force their hand.
Most traditional department stores are more concerned about turning a
positive economic profit... if they have the courage to quote that
particular metric where stockholders can hear it.
Sears was able to take 34 billion of retained earnings and grow it to
30 billion under their quality management.
Some of them have enough fun trying to get positive EBITDA. EBITDA is
formally "earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization" but everyone knows it's actually "earnings before bad
stuff" or "earnings before strangely recurrent non–recurring charges."
Some of them even have even more fun avoiding Chapter 11 and/or
Chapter 7.
A success story, however: May Company seems to be doing quite well in
the same local mall space that Montgomery Ward used to go bankrupt.

[intentionally top–posting; sorry]
But this kind of reasoning is simply setting up a straw man and causing folks
to get angry over nothing.
The article in the WP and from I gathered from the DFW news report is that
stores are not going to shut down returns altogether. They're simply going to
look at the 1–2% of returns which show a pattern of fraud.
Those of us who are neither habitual returners nor people who engage in fraud
will not be affected by this closer scrutiny.
––
Julie P.
"MADE FOR TELEVISION."––Owen Meany

In article <20041114185020.23249.00000...@mb–m03.aol.com>,
slee...@aol.com (Sleepi8) wrote:
You are a docile little shopper by making the purchase in the first
place. If a store is not adequately staffed, I will not be
inconvenienced by being forced to make a second trip to return things
unless they're paying for the gas and my time.
Stacy

Stacy Ferguson wrote:
<<You are a docile little shopper by making the purchase in the first
place. If a store is not adequately staffed, I will not be
inconvenienced by being forced to make a second trip to return things
unless they're paying for the gas and my time.>>
I suppose it depends on your concept of what's inconvenient. If I like
a store's clothes and prices why shouldn't I avail myself of their
merchandise? But whyy should I be expected to stand in line to get into
a fitting room where I'm only allowed to bring in 6 garments at a time,
and then wait on another line to give the store my money?
Being a "docile little shopper" means
abetting the store in overworking their staff and underserving their
customers.
I'd much rather wait on one line, perhaps buy 8 items, try them on at
home, and bring back those that aren't acceptable.
Macy's, L & T, Filene's Basement, TJ Maxx are all within 10 to 20
minutes of my house. It's quite convenient to return things to them.
If money isn't a concern, and good customer service is a priority, I'll
drive the 45 minutes to Nordstrom's. But if my goal is the most
efficient expenditure of my time and money, I'll shop where I can get
the best bang for both.
How the store deals with returns and how much those returns cost them is
not my concern. The store gets my money. My only obligation to it is
to give it to them.
I consider all other elements of the unwritten merchant/customer
contract to be the merchant's responsibility.
Lily

Lil...@webtv.net (Lily) wrote in message news:<15672–4199A269–...@storefull–3332.bay.webtv.net>...
I think in this debate two things get confused, the fact that some
people do buy multiples of the same item in different sizes to try at
home, and people who buy a garment to use it (for one time, or more)
and return it.
In regular stores like Talbots & Ann Taylor I have been told many
times, and overheard the same thing told to countless
customers...."why don't you just take both sizes and then return the
size that doesn't fit?"
Their staff encourages people to do this...and it's a very tempting
thing to do when you're pressed for time. So far, from all the
comments that have been posting here, it seems like this return
backlash is restricted to some lower–priced stores. I doubt this
system will ever be implemented in more upscale stores, it just
wouldn't fly there––at the very least they will need to retrain their
entire staffs. In my opinion, the more upscale a store is the more
accomodating it needs to be in order to retain its customers––why
would I give them my business otherwise?
––Maria
––Maria

In article <15672–4199A269–...@storefull–3332.bay.webtv.net>,
Lil...@webtv.net (Lily) wrote:
I agree that inconvience is subjective.
I don't disagree with your opinions of poor customer service but I
handle it by refusing to reward the store with my purchases at all.
I've been more adamant about it lately, mostly because the supermarkets
are so lousy at customer service in this area that I've actively decided
to become a less courteous shopper. In the past, I've always returned
items to the shelves if I decide to leave, irritated at having to stand
in line. No more Ms. Nice Guy. I tend to shop between 8 and 10 pm after
major crowds have gone, although there are still plenty of customers.
It's the rule rather than the exception that there's exactly one express
lane open (usually with 10–20 people in line) and one regular lane
(usually with at least 4 customers in line, carts overflowing). People
are yelling towards the customer service desk, telling the three people
slumming back there to get another line going and the people at the
counter just shrug or smirk back. On top of that, there are
self–checkout registers that COULD be used but are closed in the
evening. One checkout clerk can observe/help four to six customers at a
time when the self–checkout registers are open.
I've given up, taken my groceries to the customer service desk and told
them that there's frozen food in there that they may want to put back
ASAP.
Stacy

Leigh Melton <le...@nbi.com> wrote in message news:<ncoro0tt15ik98kqto85bh1cn9fj9pt...@4ax.com>...
I hope that stores that do this allow some discretion to be exercised
by store managers. Possibly allow for notes to be made on computer
records as to the *reasons* the returns are made in each case? Some
people who make regular use of the returns policy aren't really a
problem to the store.
In my case, I shop for a man who hates shopping. It is so much easier
to leave him at home with our kids, go to a store with a decent
returns policy, buy 4 or 5 items, have him try them on later that day
and then return the ones that aren't satisfactory. Clothes are
returned clean, no more worn than if they'd been tried on in store,
with tags, within a day or two of purchase. The store makes a sale and
is spared the prescence of one very frazzled family.
For a while my mother shopped for my grandmother, who had mobility
problems. So much easier to buy a heap of clothes that look as though
they are to her taste, get the aged care workers at the nursing home
to assist her in trying them on, then return the items she doesn't
want. Once again, clothes returned in excellent condition within a day
or two of purchase. The store was spared the fuss of a disabled woman
taking up a fitting room for an extended period as she is dressed and
undressed, a process requiring at least 2 people to assist her.
Looks as though some stores are forgetting about the extra sales that
a customer friendly returns policy enable them to make. Quite
honestly, if there was no store that would allow me to return items, I
would probably spend about half what I currently do on clothes for my
partner. He wouldn't mind, as he is happy to wear jeans until the
holes in them threaten to reveal the bits that should not be revealed.

Keep it up. Maybe they'll decide to stop allowing you in the store, or maybe
they'll make you pay for what you dump on the customer service counter.
According to you and your previous arguments in this thread, this would be
perfectly acceptable behavior on the store's part.
You are a piece of work, and I don't mean that in a good way.
Shari

Shari writes:
Or maybe the store will learn that customers won't tolerate the understaffing
of cashiers. I had brought home thawed meant–to–be–frozen food one too many
times (sometimes with ice cream leaking out on the other groceries) when I
found myself in a line behind 10 or so other customes with very full carts. I
decided I'd had it with buying groceries and throwing them out when I got home,
so I let the store take the hit for once. I pulled my cart just to the side of
the line so it wouldn't impede others, and walked out. I didn't tell customer
service or anyone else that I'd left the food unattended. Apparently others
got the message across to the store as well, because when I went back a few
months later, instead of 2 of the 12 checkouts being manned, all of them were.
And it's been that way ever since.
Linda

On 21 Nov 2004 13:17:57 GMT, julane...@aol.com (Linda) wrote:
Well, personally I'd have put the food back, then told the manager why
I wouldn't be shopping there any longer.
Chris

Chris writes:
If it had happened only once or twice, I'd have had more patience figuring that
the store had had a lot of call–ins from sick cashiers that day. But it
happened week after week, and it was obvious the store was purposely
understaffing. I had complained to the manager a couple of times (in previous
visits) by the time I walked out, to no avail. It's extremely aggravating to
take a $5 container of ice cream out of the bag and throw it directly in the
garbage, along with boxes of popsicles, when the ink isn't even dry yet on the
check I used to buy pay for them! Needless to say, I felt no obligation to the
store at that time. And as you suggested, I did quit shopping there for a few
months. Sometimes it takes hitting the bottom line to get through to a store.
Linda

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:03:39 –0500, Lily wrote:
Because you're impressing people by carrying around a bag emblazoned
with their famous name.
And given that Target has figured out "expedite the guest's shopping
experience and don't waste her time" as being a high priority, I would
think the department stores would have figured that out by now.
OTOH, if the department stores would have figured much out over the
years, they would have invented Wal–Mart. (Dayton's did figure out to
do Target.)

On 11 Nov 2004 20:37:23 –0800, aee1307 wrote:
Not the most talkative Web site but they do have one:
http://www.thereturnexchange.com/

I never said that I wanted stores to adopt such an "extreme" policy. You did.
I just said that if stores don't want to deal with returns, they should stop
them altogether and suffer the consequences.
Most stores (department and specialty) that are doing good business have
liberal return policies, and that's no accident.
It's usually the smaller businesses that don't allow returns, and I make it a
point not to shop at those establishments.
Shari
(who made two returns this weekend for items that I decided weren't going to
work with the rest of my wardrobe.)

In article <20041114182541.23249.00000...@mb–m03.aol.com>,
slee...@aol.com (Sleepi8) wrote:
I see. You don't want to judge people who make returns frequently but
you want to go extreme and adopt a policy that punishes everyone instead
because that's more fair. I'm certainly glad that most people are unlike
you because it would mean that all privileges for anything would be
terminated because there are always people who abuse them.
Stacy
And that's an extreme policy, which you are advocating.
That's because most customers don't abuse it. The customers who do abuse
it are the ones for whom exceptions are made to the usual liberal return
policy. This is entirely fair, IMO.
Are you SURE you don't shop at companies that may reject your returns?
The list of companies using the service is private (at least until your
return is rejected).
Stacy

In article <20041110001506.07944.00000...@mb–m07.aol.com>,
slee...@aol.com (Sleepi8) wrote:
You don't know how much money that woman might be spending either. Being
in a store often and returning a lot does NOT mean that she's spending a
lot of money. When I was in high school, I worked in a Sears store
selling shoes on weekends. A very large number of people, whose faces I
can still picture some 25 years later, returned MOST of their purchases
and much of it was worn. Some people are stupid. People didn't want to
believe they needed a size 9 shoe (I guess that you're a better person
if you need a smaller shoe) and despite my advice, would go with the
size 8s. Then they'd return the shoes because they hurt/aggravated
bunions/caused blisters, snagged their hose, etc.
So tell us. How do YOU know that the woman is spending more than she's
returning and how do YOU know that the same store is not aware of her
spending habits? I was acutely aware of the difference when I was in
retail.
Stacy

Stacy writes:
I don't know what the woman is spending. I just think that if she's in the
store on a regular basis buying enough merchandise to make what they consider
to be excessive returns, then she's probably spending quite a bit of money on
the items she keeps as well.
Would you like the store to keep track of her purchases to make sure that it's
breaking even or ahead of the game? The whole thing is ridiculous.
Nordstrom's is a perfect example. They have a liberal return policy, and I
don't see them hurting for business.
This is just another example of people trying to force their idea of "morality"
down other people's throats. I'm sick of seeing some members of this newsgroup
go into attack mode everytime someone innocently posts about a return they
made. You'd think the money was coming directly out of their pockets.
Shari

Shari writes:
But it *is* coming out of our pockets! Whether the cost of excessive returns
is felt by the store or the manufacturer, the loss *will* be recuped in the
form of higher prices, either retail or wholesale. I don't like the idea of
paying for someone else's recreation of habitually shopping and returning
things, or their thoughtless purchasing decisions. If something is purchased
and returned within a day or two in resellable (new) condition, minimal harm is
done. But if it's been hanging around in the buyer's closet for months until
it's out of season, the return isn't justified. Or if it's been worn and is
not defective, the return isn't justified. In the case of cosmetics,
fragrances, and the like – it's all unsellable once returned, no matter if it's
been used or not. The store, manufacturer, and ultimately the other shoppers
should not have to pay the price for others' poor shopping habits.
Linda

The store *is* keeping track of her purchases. Already. That's the point.
That's because the Nordstrom model is entirely different than the model for the
various Limited stores on myriad, and fairly obvious, levels, from the source
of their merchandise to their price points, to their marketing strategies to
their demographics.
"morality"
newsgroup
Actually, such behavior on the part of some consumers does indeed take money
out of the pockets (and pocketbooks) of the rest of us.
Futhermore, it's not "morality." It's plain old common sense: actions have
consequences.
––
Julie P.
"MADE FOR TELEVISION."––Owen Meany

"Sleepi8" <slee...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041110132922.07211.00000...@mb–m10.aol.com...
I actually think this has been an interesting exchange of views on an a.f.
related issue. I don't see it as a moral issue. The exchange hasn't
changed my mind about what I think, but it's certainly given me insights
into what people who differ think about the same issue. I think that's a
good thing. And I'll bet there are some people who have actually changed
their viewpoint somewhat after reading the great variety of opinions
expressed on this topic.
Smokey

In article <20041110132922.07211.00000...@mb–m10.aol.com>,
slee...@aol.com (Sleepi8) wrote:
If you don't know what she's spending then you can't say that she's
buying enough merchandise to compensate the store's profit margin with
excessive returns. I haven't heard anything here or elsewhere about
general problems with returning items to Express. Do you think they
pulled that particular woman's name out of a hat? I doubt it.
Yes, I would and obviously, they did so it's not a "would" situation. I
don't think it's ridiculous at all. It's good business sense. We were
losing money weekly on the woman who returned every pair she purchased
and wore because it was Sears policy. Sears isn't doing so well anymore
and I don't doubt that this contributes to the problem. People shrug off
their own poor purchasing habits onto the store, claiming that the store
can send things back to the manufacturer. That's not always the case. A
large percentage of the items that were sold through Sears while I was
there was manufactured and shipped directly from other countries, which
meant that getting reimbursed would cost Sears in shipping to, say,
Brazil. All those shoes ended up in the trash bin as a complete loss.
The store does not need to keep track in a formal way to figure out who
the worst return offenders are. If the woman at the Stila counter sees
me once a month, she remembers me. If someone else is returning things
just as frequently, why wouldn't she be remembered? I remembered the
worst offenders. I also remember frequent customers who bought a lot and
returned things only when defective (or unworn and still sellable).
"Morality" demands that others lose money so you can shop and return
without a second thought? Is this in the bible or something? If you're
trying to justify your own poor judgment in shopping, perhaps you've
created your own definition of "morality" that many of us don't
understand. This is a discussion group. If you can't handle the heat,
you know what to do. No need for your to get sick over it.
Stacy

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:46:16 –0600, Stacy Ferguson wrote:
Sears has a number of problems... when I think of "Sears problem" I
think of having a credit department that rushes in where fools dare to
tread.
My view may be off a bit from listening to Target Corporation say over
and over again "we run Target National Bank [their in–house credit
card issuer] conservatively, so we don't get in trouble like Sears."

Salvation Army Christmas buckets at their facilities, at least in this area and
I would assume nationwide. The instant poll showed about 76% of the response
in total disagreement with the Target policy.
Jo Ann
www.exclusivelyjoann.com

In <20041110232120.06537.00000...@mb–m15.aol.com> EXC JO ANN wrote:
Interesting Charles, I just read today that Target will no longer
allow
Did Target give any reason(s) to this decision?
––
Cheers
Dennis
Remove 'Elle–Kabong' to reply

Ruddell <ruddell'Elle–Kabo...@canada.com> wrote on 10 Nov 2004:
I hope it's because of the same reason I don't and won't support the SA––
their discriminatory policies.
––
Poetic Badgers
"The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud."
–Coco Chanel

maladic...@aol.com (Maladicta1) wrote on 07 Nov 2004:
Excellent!!
––
Poetic Badgers
"The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud."
–Coco Chanel

I couldn't care less about the financial status of Sears just as I'm sure they
couldn't care less about all the people they ripped off with their automotive
services a few years ago. IMO, it would be no great loss if Sears went out of
business.
If a customer is targeted as an "excessive returner", she should be warned
before she makes another purchase that it will not be returnable.
If Express had done that, the woman probably would have taken her business
elsewhere, which is why they kept it a big secret until the moment of the
return.
She bought the item in justifiable reliance on being able to return it in
accordance with the store's policy (whether that meant within 60 days, with
tags, unworn, whatever).
The store doesn't have a right to arbitrarily change the policy for one
consumer without notifying that person well in advance of their next purchase.
Even then, I have a problem with the store changing its return policy for
*some* people and not for others.
You know what, Stacy. Stop putting words in my mouth. I think I've made my
opinion on this subject crystal clear.
This is a discussion group. If you can't handle the heat,
Don't flatter yourself.
Shari

Something to the effect that if they allowed the Salvation Army to solicit they
would need to afford the opportunity to others.
Jo Ann
www.exclusivelyjoann.com

A couple weeks ago at the Ann Taylor sale I was considering a jacket but
they didn't have the bottom piece to match. I told the SA it might
coordinate with a skirt I had and she happily offerecd, "and if it doesn't
you can just return it". That's what ended up happening.
Clearly there are some stores whose policies and practices exacerbate the
return problem and others that take a different approach.
Claire

On 08 Nov 2004 03:38:23 GMT, Sleepi8 wrote:
Return policies are like Ronald Reagan.
They start out liberal, then they get frustrated and overtaxed, then
they become very conservative. <grin/duck>

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 04:28:34 GMT, Charlie Perrin
<c.l.per...@SPAMBOTS_DIEatt.net> coughed and sputtered, and
managed to choke out these words:
and then they forget everything and die?
––
"i'm diggin' on the isotopes, this megaphysics
shit is dope, and if all this can give me hope,
you know i'm satisfied." –madonna, "american life"

"Sleepi8" <slee...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041107223823.12369.00000...@mb–m28.aol.com...
store
Side note:
And if you shopped at the Express at which I usually (used to) shop, you'd
boycott because of the seriously obnoxious guy who may or not be the store
manager but who barks loudly and incessantly at the staff as if to keep them
on some sort of hyper–vigilant alert. "Do this, do that, why aren't you
doing such and such.." All the customers can observe the goings on and it's
so obvious that it's hard to igonore. As a shopper it stresses me out. I
feel as if I've entered a war zone and he's in charge of triage. It's
bizarre.
Claire

slee...@aol.com (Sleepi8) wrote in message news:<20041107223823.12369.00000...@mb–m28.aol.com>...
Oh I agree. I rarely return things, however if I have my reciept and
they did this to me. I would be on the news etc. They should tell
you at time of purchase "OH bTW– You no longer can return anything to
our store". And oh Yeah I would really shop there again

In article <20041114191304.23249.00000...@mb–m03.aol.com>,
slee...@aol.com (Sleepi8) wrote:
Stacy Ferguson writes:
Exactly. You don't care about whether or not they go out of business.
Express cares about whether IT goes out of business. Get over your
delusion. Whether customer service is stellar or poor, the store exists
for ONE reason only. To make a profit. They aren't there with the
altruistic intention of pleasing you. Good customer service may be part
of attracting customers but if a customer is not profitable, then they
don't care. End of story. You don't have to shop there if you don't like
it or if you feel that you fit in the "undesirable shopper" category and
that you may be humiliated in public for it.
If the woman at the Stila counter sees
me once a month, she remembers me. If someone else is returning things
just as frequently, why wouldn't she be remembered?
Um, no. Perhaps you should learn about a topic before yammering on.
Express contracts a service, not unlike Telecheck. They do not make the
decision. The Return Exchange makes that decision. Just as Express has
no right to investigate the personal bank account histories of customers
who write checks, they would be invading your privacy by running around
checking out your return history at other stores. They can't warn you
about a return because they don't necessarily KNOW about your history
when you purchase the item. Nordstrom personnel will not know whether
you have a history of passing bad checks. Are you claiming that due to
their customer service, superior to that of Express, would allow you to
pay with a check that is rejected through the company they use? It's
their POLICY to accept checks. Feeling singled out because they don't
like your hairstyle would be idiotic. They're not singling anyone out
arbitrarily either. They're being singled out for a behavior pattern
that's a financial risk to the company.
It was not changed for one customer. Which part of "she was not
arbitrarily chosen" do you not understand? She was identified as an
excessive returner through a company paid to do determine this for them.
Express did not identify her. Express passed on the bad news, just as
Express will tell you that Telecheck rejected your check. They
Yes, you have. Stores are there for the sole purpose of pleasing you.
Protecting themselves from abuse of return policies is wrong.
Stacy

I must be in the minority here as I rarely return things. When I try
something on I instantly know whether I'm going to buy it and I don't
get the "foreign, strange enviroment" feeling either. It's a dressing
room and the outfit is not going to look any different at home than it
is in the the store. I know whether it looks good, fits properly,
well made, and how I feel in it. And when I look at it in the mirror
I know if it will go with anything else in my wardrobe. None of the
snatch–and–grab–buying for me and–I'll–return–it–if–don't–like–it.
You're taking the time to go a retailer and look around, take a few
minutes and try to make a wise buying decision. Don't you all get
tired of taking things back and standing in line to get your money
back or credit card credited? You could be using *that* time to
purchase another jacket/blouse/sweater/skirt/etc.!

itsjoannotjo...@webtv.net (ItsJoanNotJoAnn) wrote on 08 Nov 2004:
Hmm. The lighting and the mirrors at the store look nothing like the
lighting and mirrors at my house.
––
Poetic Badgers
"The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud."
–Coco Chanel

On 9 Nov 2004 13:53:40 GMT, Poetic Badgers wrote:
It's a dressing room and the outfit is not going to look any
different at home than it is in the the store.
I've seen store lighting that definitely didn't agree with what the
clothes looked like under daylight.

Charlie Perrin <c.l.per...@SPAMBOTS_DIEatt.net> wrote on 09 Nov 2004:
Heh. Even though some of my totes would be big enough for a small one,
I'm certainly not going to carry a full spectrum light around with me.
––
Poetic Badgers
"The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud."
–Coco Chanel

On 11/8/04 8:35 PM, in article
8365a6e8.0411081835.2e82b...@posting.google.com, "ItsJoanNotJoAnn"
<itsjoannotjo...@webtv.net> wrote:
I'd like to point out that some people work non–standard/horrendous hours
and are forced to snatch–and–grab shop. For example, I've been working
10–12hrs/day for the past 5.5wks, and most of my shopping has be in/out in
the last 30min before the store closes. I've been lucky and haven't
returned very much, but I did return a toaster oven (too big for the
counter) and a pair of shoes.
As an aside regarding retailers somewhat bringing this upon themselves, many
stores have at some point encouraged a "get it before it's gone!" mentality,
which encourages rash purchasing that has a higher rate of returns than
normal.
ami