Blocked from shopping online at Nordstromrack.com and Hautelook.com
- Thread starter skim927
- Start date
Yeah, but really, a lifetime ban for 25% rate of return? The higher percentages I understand but this sounds like an error on Nordstrom’s part that they don’t want to correct. They can justify their bans as business decisions but some of them are poor ones.
Really? I don't think so, 25% means returning 1/4th, postage, restocking, change of season, not being able to sell so having to knock down the price, checking the time... MASSIVE costs, so hardly a poor business decision but cutting out somebody who causes costs. Tbh chances are they will do that to another business and therefore damaging the competition as in burdening them with costs...
As I said, I don't return much, I am not happy about funding returns for somebody who likes to return as the costs get distributed to the sales price, why on earth should I pay for somebody's return habit? How is it the problem of the store if somebody wants to try on items but does not want to go to the shop to do so in person? If there is no shop nearby, yeah, tough, but again, I do not want to pay for somebody living in an area where there is no shop nearby, why on earth should I?
I am not an easy fit, so I call the store in advance and ask about the sizing, if I don't know them I do a test order according to what they told me, if that doesn't work, I don't order again. Returns are expensive, somebody pays for them, the people who are actual buyers and not returners, that would be me, so why should I pay for somebody elses frequent returns? I am seriously happy that they have that policy and I think it was long overdue. Somebody wanting to try things on, cool, go to the shop, that is what they are there for, if you do not have a shop nearby, that is tough, but essentially not the problem of the shop but due to your location, which is your choice.
I am aware sizing can vary, I am also aware that most people have phones and can call the store and give their measurements and ask a SA to check, if they don't, pass and go to the store to try on, if it is not convenient, well that is not really the problem of the store or the people who buy and through their shopping pay more because you return a lot. I would be more than happy if most stores would have a scale, say over 10% of returns you pay postage costs both ways and restocking fees, it would stop people ordering "to see" without actual intention to buy. Companies with absurd sizing would be out, at the same time serial returners would be out, less overhead, cheaper prices for real customers, win win.
I actually live near Nordstrom, Bloomingdales, Saks, Neiman Marcus and other major department stores. But let me tell you, the stores do not have the type of stock they used to have. I would love to try things on before I order, but no store within 50 miles of me typically has the item. Believe me, I check before I order. Online stores have lots more inventory than the brick and mortar stores. I do not enjoy returning things and I always drive to the store to do so if something does not fit. I am happy to pay return shipping if I cannot drive to make a return -- Saks requires it.
I think your solution of calling the store before every purchase to attempt to determine if something will fit is untenable, as the store typically does not even have the item for an SA to measure. And I sincerely doubt that SAs will happily run about the store measuring things for you. IMHO you are being dismissive and callous toward people who don't live near a store, as if moving to somewhere that does is easy. Please. We are aware it's "not your problem," as you've made repeated posts in this thread to that effect. We get it.
The different experiences being related here makes clear that a simple solution is easier said than done.
I mean, where are you going to draw the line? Only allow people who never ever return anything they buy shop online? Like online returns, returns of in-store purchases cost employee time to process and place back on the floor, too. Rejects from fitting room try-ons take time to be placed back on racks and re-folded. Are you going to penalize customers who do either of these things because they divert employee time from generating sales and aren’t profit-generating customers? We’ve all been there where we return things. It happens and with online shopping it happens more often.
Companies like Nordstrom offer free shipping and returns because they’re betting on people taking a chance in ordering things and potentially keeping them, or being too lazy to return items or missing the returns window. They don’t like people who know the parameters of return policies and use/abuse them. Many European companies with an online presence specifically state that they offer free shipping/returns for US orders and adapt to the local business practices. Nordstrom could switch to an all sales final or return for store credit only policy but that would have a chilling effect on sales. If it’s an issue, why not institute a policy like 6pm.com where the customer is responsible for their own return shipping costs? Some retailers charge a restocking fee. There are a variety of ways around this issue. Instead, we hear about passive-aggressive emails and certified letters (seriously?! What’s next, personal service?) banning people for life. Most of the people here who have been banned and/or warned have stated they’re less likely to shop at the retailer who issued the ban/warning.
I don’t disagree that Nordstrom’s return policy was too lenient and prone to abuse or overuse by consumers who were following what they thought were the rules. But for PR reasons I think they could’ve approached the returns policy with more of a carrot and less of a stick approach. Now people are hesitant to shop with them which will drive sales down more. But you can’t blame the serial returners now that they’ve already been banned from shopping there, right?
Companies like Nordstrom offer free shipping and returns because they’re betting on people taking a chance in ordering things and potentially keeping them, or being too lazy to return items or missing the returns window. They don’t like people who know the parameters of return policies and use/abuse them. Many European companies with an online presence specifically state that they offer free shipping/returns for US orders and adapt to the local business practices. Nordstrom could switch to an all sales final or return for store credit only policy but that would have a chilling effect on sales. If it’s an issue, why not institute a policy like 6pm.com where the customer is responsible for their own return shipping costs? Some retailers charge a restocking fee. There are a variety of ways around this issue. Instead, we hear about passive-aggressive emails and certified letters (seriously?! What’s next, personal service?) banning people for life. Most of the people here who have been banned and/or warned have stated they’re less likely to shop at the retailer who issued the ban/warning.
I don’t disagree that Nordstrom’s return policy was too lenient and prone to abuse or overuse by consumers who were following what they thought were the rules. But for PR reasons I think they could’ve approached the returns policy with more of a carrot and less of a stick approach. Now people are hesitant to shop with them which will drive sales down more. But you can’t blame the serial returners now that they’ve already been banned from shopping there, right?
I'll bet it isn't just % returns. I'll bet there's an algorithm for the dollar value of returns vs dollar value of keepers. Also, they are probably running predictive analytics about how much you'll cost them in the long run.
I agree with you, @i*bella, it’s basically bad PR.
Got to disagree with you on this one, Gabs, I just don’t believe the calculation is that direct, customer to customer, the need for returns is just an essential overhead that any business selling online has to factor in, and anyway as a customer I willingly accept this may affect prices and am perfectly happy to absorb that on my own account and in relation to other customers who return more than me, in order to have the convenience and range of products offered.
They just seem to have got their business model wrong, or it’s outdated, and are handling the results in an objectionable way. If the cost is becoming unsustainable (as per many news articles we see, and leaving the ecological arguments out of it for the purposes of this discussion) they would do better to change their model and policy because they are making themselves look like a very shabby operator to reasonable people as well as to those who seriously overdo the returns (and let’s remember there could be valid reasons for high rates too). Any reasonable customer would think twice about ordering online at all if returns were too difficult, and if banning of customers, who are quite understandably accepting and using the returns policy, is so arbitrarily carried out in this Kafkaesque manner. At the very least a courteous warning makes NR look less shabby.
It’s a reasonable expectation that if a business offers online shopping and returns, it is there for me to take up both offers. It was their choice to make the offer. I don’t think I’m entitled as a human right to have anything I have a whim to have (since the subject of entitlement keeps getting raised in this context), but I do know I’m entitled as a consumer matter to take up the commercial offer made. I shop that way, with plenty of returns, at many online retailers, and they keep offering me more and more privileges and discounts: they want my return custom. I couldn’t change my returns needs by going to a store (no stock for choice anyway, I have mobility issues, too far away etc) and I’ve never yet found a single brand whose sizing is consistent or a single sales assistant who can give me fitting advice that translates into actual fitting (and more often than not they want you to buy anyway even if they know the fit will be wrong, because it’s a possible sale even if you do return and they want to keep you involved with them). They could put proper fitting information/measurements online, but few online retailers do, so I guess they have their reasons for that. Takes time? Maybe they’d rather save the time there, hope you keep what you buy, and spend the time on restocking if you return? It’s not my ‘mistake’ or my ‘problem’ if I don’t like what I bought, it’s nobody’s ‘problem’, it’s part of the transaction that they will accept it back according to their policy. Additionally an increasing number of retailers are offering a ‘try before you buy’ service where you don’t even pay upfront, but get charged for whatever you don’t return after 30 days. So clearly returns are something they allow for.
I don’t know all the relevant consumer law in the US but of course in the UK and EU the distance selling regulations entitle consumers to refunds for any goods purchased online as long as returned in same condition as sold; time conditions may apply, reasonable shipping fees may apply depending on the business; further consumer legal protections apply for anything not as described, or defective with a longer time period allowed (reasonably expected product life). Nordstrom Rack is entitled to operate its policy as it pleases within the local law, but it does offer the policy it offers, and if some of what we read here is to be believed, it is making itself a really unattractive place to shop, not just for serial returners but for reasonable returners and potentially even for those who to date have never returned a thing (who are these superhuman people? How on earth do they do it?!). I’ve shopped online from Nordstrom but not NR but what I see here puts me right off both of them simply because they are treating some customers in an objectionable way. I don’t fear a ban, I just don’t want to give my business to a company known for doing this in such an unreasonable manner to other people. I’m such an embarrassingly big spender, they’d make a fortune out of me if I shopped there, returns notwithstanding, but they sound so awful, I’m just not interested. There must be a lot of people who will feel the same and that’s a loss to Nordstrom.
A 25% return rate is more than reasonable for online shopping, and all the more so when the company offers the policy it does. It doesn’t matter what the cost is (environment aside), that’s all factored into the business model. If all of that 25% was returned not in the condition it was received by the customer, that’s another matter, but in that case they should just refuse to accept the returns, the message would soon be received. Possibly some algorithm is taking into account future risks/fraud but if it’s banning reasonable customers that’s just bad practice. Personally I would consider a 50% return rate entirely reasonable because it is online, I would prefer to reduce number of packages/pollution miles and avoid missing out on the right size which may have sold out before I can exchange, and most online retailers recognise this is a natural part of online selling. Even a higher return rate is reasonable for an array of different reasons, all of which have been debated at great length over in the other thread about returns/warnings/bans with Nordstrom. They just need to accommodate the costs in a workable way. Banning is a ‘workable way’ but not one that makes the business look attractive to customers generally.
There are plenty of simple ways they could discourage or redistribute the cost of excessive returning without being so apparently arbitrary, including: charging restocking fees or return shipping fees either for all customers or (because obviously they have a liberal return policy because it’s good for business and attracts profitable customers) just for those who have shown a high return rate already (free returns could maybe be earned back again after a period or number of/value of purchases); shortening the return window to avoid having out-of-date stock; refusing to accept returns of non-faulty items which are not in the condition in which they were first received by the customer (thus avoiding the appalling situation when they unforgivably send damaged goods on to other customers, pushing their return rate higher). These things could easily be incorporated into the T&Cs. Items returned because faulty or not as described/not as appearing on screen should be excluded from a customer’s return percentage.
Whatever the ‘costs’ of returns to businesses, and whatever the particular differences in the discounted products business, it sounds as though NR got their business model completely wrong and are flailing around taking emergency action. It’s shabby to treat reasonable customers this way, and creates a bad image when they cut off even high returners without warning. I’m not suggesting they should never ban serial high returners but I think there are better ways of doing it which make the company look less objectionable. They offered the policy because it made business sense to them, and customers shop with the guarantee of that policy to give them confidence. NR are entitled to do as they see fit within the law, ban customers as they wish if they don’t want them, and no, I don’t have to like what they do, but they do need me to like what they do if they want my money, and this just makes me steer clear of them because it looks like a company that doesn’t behave well towards customers, and I’d be a very profitable customer to have on balance. There will be thousands like me who feel that way. There are more image-friendly ways they could approach this and sustain their profitability. We all know business is business and ultimately about the money, but image is an important element of how we relate to retailers and choose those we give our business to. It won’t just be high returners NR and Nordstrom turn off by behaving in this rather uncivilised way.
Last edited:
A 25% return rate is perfectly reasonable with online shopping.
. . . And analytics about what value of the returned item is worth, given how much time is passed, is it automatically put on some sale and or clearance rack, sent to a reseller . . .
Exactly. It wouldn't be that hard to track what happens to that item afterwards. I'll bet some people get blamed when they send back a damaged item because they received it damaged - and then it gets 'damaged out'...which means the second returner gets dinged for something they missed the first time. Although I don't know how often that happens.
Probably Nordstroms tells people that they 'return too much' because it's easier to say that than "well, typically you return things that are high dollar value right at the end of the return window so we lose money on it and then no one wants it because we're onto the next season (of which there are more now than fall, winter, spring, summer -- resort, pre-fall, pre-summer, etc) and it ends up getting dumped in Rack where the employee hides it in the back and then buys it on 90% off."
Yes, I know this is the Rack thread but I think it applies to anything.
I'm in a large urban area with the same stores you mention. The stock is absymal! I'm not an unusual size either. I shop online due to better selection.
I am lazy to return things. I have certain brands I buy from, in natural fibers, in particular colors (deep winter here) and those that are cut for a particular body shape. My return rate is not very high. This may not work for all.
I have personally witness this customer returned a lot of merchandise the other day. I wanted to take a picture but it would have been obvious. The cashier had to have a rolling rack brought up to the counter. I do not know if the merchandise was purchased on store or online. The customer returned what I counted looked like at least twelve pair of jeans different colors and at least fifteen pairs of t-shirts different colors. To me looks like the customer decided to buy the whole rack of clothing with the hangers still on them because that's how the jeans was placed on the rack with the clip hangers on the jeans. I know the cashier was trying to tell the customer something about the excessive amount of returns but I couldn't hear the conversation clearly. What I witness I can now see why these stores are putting drastic measures on people that have a high return rate.
Not really. Most people aren't ridiculous shoppers. I don't see any reasonable shoppers having a problem with this. The only people who see this as a problem are the people who Nordstrom doesn't want as customers.
Nordstrom is banning certain people from shopping at their stores because they don't want their business anymore. Satisfying those people is not Nordstrom's concern.
I have never seen or heard anyone talk about this outside of here. So no, this is not hurting Nordstrom's image with the general public. Not at all. Again, most people don't care because they're not ridiculous and it's not going to affect them.
That's just it: they don't simply want EVERYONE'S money. Just because you like to shop doesn't mean they want you to shop with them. If you're someone who might possibly cost them in returns--however it is that they figure out that number--then yes, YOU are someone who they don't want.
If you're the kind of shopper who is going to be making lots of returns, they know you'll just go somewhere else and buy and return a bunch of stuff, which is not something any retailer wants to deal with. They want you to be someone else's problem and not theirs.
Thought you all might be interested in this take on return management:
https://www.retaildive.com/news/getting-tough-on-returns-is-hurting-retailers/520790/
Those retailers and others employ the firm Retail Equation (owned by Appriss Inc.), according to the report. That company uses algorithms to develop a "risk score," based on consumers' shopping and return behavior, to help identify fraudulent attempts or serial returners.
https://www.retaildive.com/news/getting-tough-on-returns-is-hurting-retailers/520790/
Those retailers and others employ the firm Retail Equation (owned by Appriss Inc.), according to the report. That company uses algorithms to develop a "risk score," based on consumers' shopping and return behavior, to help identify fraudulent attempts or serial returners.
Countless times, I have been at the Nordstrom counter and seen the people in front of me return years old items ( ugg boots, jeans, sweaters, etc.). With the lenient return policy, the SAs typically had no choice but to take back the item. And believe me, this was a VERY common occurrence, more than you would expect. I believe THIS is where Nordstrom should have focused their efforts- on customers that abuse the generous return policies and not on everyday shoppers returning online purchases due to size/fit. Perhaps limiting their returns to within 90 days like other retailers?