Nordstrom banned from shopping from their online and store

[sdkitty]

If you need to go to a shop to buy things, unless you can walk there, you will need to incur a cost to get there. Shipping fees is no difference. Like I said, I don't shop with stores allow such as 3 months+ return period unless I can physically see the goods. You can't have it both ways, why should the store, which is not a charity organisation bear all costs?
In my country, online stores generally charge shipping one way, e.g. you either pay outbound shipping get returns for free or free shipping but charged for returns. You can avoid charges by picking it up or dropping it off in store or in parcel shops, so unless you can walk there, it will cost you.
Besides, I was just suggesting it as a possible alternative, it's not as if the stores would listen to me and start to implement it tomorrow so chill out.

I was just expressing my opinion which differs from yours. No need to tell me to chill out

 

[Annie J]

Oops sorry SDKitty who just liked this post, I just deleted to repost because I forgot the quotes and can’t work out how to put them back in with editing! I’ve reposted exactly the same thing below.

 

[Annie J]

Ok, thank you for this post! I’m also baffled as to why this issue is so contentious to the point where posts are vitriolic. The US has very liberal return policies compared to the rest of the world, where often it’s all sales final all the time.

That said, yesterday when I went to Nordstrom a woman returned $500 worth of Sam Edelman shoes. She brought them in in three shopping bags. Someone like that should be in the running for a ban. If online returns are a problem, Nordstrom could do something like Sephora or Amazon Prime where you pay a yearly membership fee for free shipping.

Thanks to you too! I feel it’s a matter of common sense, not emotion, don’t you?

It’s interesting, the differences in policies throughout the world. Liberal time-unlimited or long-window return policies have become uncommon in the UK and Europe, as no doubt they can be ultimately detrimental to business, but even if it’s not just common sense for business that online retailers accept returns, consumer law dictates the right to return in all distance selling (except for customised goods, or second hand goods from a private seller unless they are not as described, the latter of which certainly applies in the UK and I think probably applies in the rest of Europe too, though I am not certain of my facts on Europe). I have no knowledge of the consumer law elsewhere. I agree that a customer like the one you mentioned should be in the running for a ban; retailers have to be able to protect against unreasonable returns to stay profitable and then this also prevents prices escalating for everyone.

I probably should have qualified that: I mean someone like that should be in the running for a ban if it’s something she does frequently. I can sort of imagine buying shoes I really thought were going to perfect, in three sizes, say, if I didn’t know the brand well, couldn’t go to a store, and thought they might sell out quickly, so I might miss on an alternative size if I waited for an exchange. Then could find that actually none of them fits correctly so would have to return all. But if that represented the norm of my shopping behaviour over time, I think it might be pretty fair to ban me (after reasonable warning) as the type of customer who would be detrimental to business if one of many similar customers.

Anyway, I think we’re on the same page!

 

[whateve]

Here comes one of my essays ...

I’m so puzzled, reading various posts in this thread and others about online returns, by why this issue becomes so contentious sometimes in the particular way it does, as though it’s a battle between shoppers who return a lot and those who never return anything, and as though people who return are somehow exploiting retailers’ goodwill and spoiling things for other customers, or the other view that retailers are unfair to ban serial heavy returners. Some people undoubtedly push the system to its limits, but surely this isn’t where the problem lies? It’s all a simple business matter, not a moral one, isn’t it? I know plenty have people have offered points of view like mine too.

I’ve always viewed it that if retail businesses sell online, it must be because it is profitable for them to do so, not because they are being kind. Being able to return things you’ve bought online is what makes shopping online possible and it’s up to retailers to decide upon how they state and manage their return policy to stay profitable.

Who would ever buy anything online if they couldn’t return the goods in simple fashion? The business wouldn’t exist. It has nothing to do with whether you should go to a physical store or not/live near one/live miles from one. The offer is freely made, subject to conditions, by the business, the customer is free to take up the offer or not, businesses and other customers are not being abused when a customer buys from a company with such a policy and makes returns according with it. Right to return with ‘distance selling’, which covers mail order and online, is also a legal matter in the UK and Europe, and may be elsewhere, but I don’t know the laws in the rest of the world.

For a customer to be able to shop online with confidence and thus allow the retailer to make their profit, they need to know they can return with no quibbles. Will it fit? Will it suit me? Will the fabric/colour/style really be as it appears on screen? Does the style look like the same thing in my size that it does on the model? The way I view it, particularly with clothing, is that I have to order whatever I would have taken into a fitting room to try on if I were in a physical store, and be able to return anything that does not work for me. Meantime the retailer hangs onto my money and is at liberty to refuse my return if I do not return items promptly in the time allowed and in good condition.

With regard to whether items returned by an online shopper are still ‘new’ or not, which some people have sometimes justifiable concerns about, surely the answer is that an item tried on and returned to an online retailer is just as ‘new’ as an item in a physical store that has been tried on in a physical store, decided against, and returned to the shop floor in the normal way? Items that are received when online shopping that are in terrible condition are a sign the retailer is not doing its job to firstly refuse returned goods which are spoilt, and secondly in sending those spoilt goods on to another customer. So the responsibility for sending any effectively truly second-hand goods to a customer lies with the retailer, not the customer who spoilt the item, however shabby that customer’s behaviour was. It’s just a bad retailer failing to uphold its own policies. Surely no retailer has an actual policy that they will accept returns in any condition at all?*

Obviously there will be cases of customers who over a long period of time return such a high proportion of what they buy, or frequently return things in bad, not-as-sold condition (which the retailer ought to refuse to accept item by item), that to have a very large number of such customers would start to reduce reasonable profitability. And in those cases surely it is obvious that the retailer has the right to decide they will no longer sell to those customers/close those customers’ accounts? Provided that closing somebody’s account for this reason is in accordance with any terms and conditions originally agreed to when first creating the account, or in a similar way in accordance with the T&Cs if the same shopper was making an unreasonable number of returns or returning wrecked goods as a ‘guest’ client without an account, if the retailer is able to identify them. They would only be able to apply this as far as the law allows them to. Any business makes an offer and can choose not to do business with a customer if the legally valid stated terms and conditions are not complied with by the customer.

The only remaining query, then, from the customer point of view would be: “What is this ‘unreasonable’ pattern of/level of/condition of returns that might get me banned?” It is probably at the retailer’s discretion and probably just requires common sense to assess. I can’t comment for various different retailers, but Net-a-Porter for instance says what the screenshot below shows. It’s at their discretion rather than very specific probably because it’s difficult to quantify and is based upon different factors with an individual customer. It will be courteous of them to issue a polite warning rather than ban immediately. And if they issue you a warning but you didn’t think your returns were unreasonable, you can talk to them about it I’m sure, or alternatively think about whether your pattern of returns is maybe a bit unreasonable. Sometimes I’ll order multiple sizes of a new item that might sell out quickly because an alternative size will have disappeared before I can exchange. I think that’s fair enough. Personally, I feel that in the online shopping context, it’s reasonable occasionally to order four dresses for an occasion and try all on before deciding which I really prefer, or even return them all, promptly and in original condition, if none really hits the mark. But I wouldn’t do such a high volume return regularly. Have you fallen into a pattern of regularly ordering absolutely everything that catches your eye knowing full well you’re going to consistently return a huge proportion of it, or are you ordering multiples for genuine reasons, returning just what really doesn’t fit or suit you, or turns out to be not as expected from the screen? Very occasionally if I think a run of returns for perfectly valid reasons might nevertheless look odd, I have emailed customer service to explain the reasons so that it’s on record, and I could refer to it if I ever received a warning (which I never have, but who knows if it could happen if they don’t know for sure all the criteria?)

Regarding the point of whether the customer ‘should’ pay for shipping and returns, and are they creating ‘unfair’ costs for the retailer, I have always made the assumption that online retailers will have decided how far they can incorporate this into the prices of their goods and weigh it against the hugely increased business they can do online and the reduced costs of not having a physical store or maintain fewer physical stores. Charging shipping either way is really just a business decision, not a moral one where some customers should pay because others never want to return anything. Those customers who never want to return everything still have the return policy available to them so it is still a benefit, and if other customers were prevented from or had to pay more for their returns, quite likely those who never return anything would find what is available to buy online shrinks as other customers desert online shopping and retailers can’t make enough money from it. I imagine that where businesses do not charge for return shipping, they have calculated that it increases their business overall and contributes to its viability. We read often about the online retail business struggling with large numbers of returns and it reducing their profits, but this isn’t a moral issue, it’s a business model/profitability issue that the retailers have to decide upon.

It’s for the retailers to decide their business model and the consumer to decide whether to accept the offer. I don’t understand why some retailers have a really long or open-ended return policy (except for faulty goods which are covered by law anyway) This is uncommon in the UK; Marks & Spencer and John Lewis stopped their open ended policy and reduced the returns/exchanges window years ago, and the only European retailer I know of that has a long returns window is Zalando. I get the impression here that some US online retailers have long windows. They must have decided it works for them and are at liberty to change their policy, subject to consumer law, when it no longer works as a business model. Of course it’s not working for consumers when they receive essentially used goods when paying for new, but that is a separate customer service issue and the retailer is responsible for managing it. We can return unacceptable goods to or choose not to buy from retailers who have poor quality control over their returns and ship spoilt goods out to new customers.

It’s all a simple business issue, isn’t it? That’s not a statement, it is my belief, but I’m also asking anybody if there’s some point I’ve missed. As for whether some people abuse the system and spoil it for the rest of us, well, that’s for the retailers to work out as part of their business model and it’s really not a “You with your returns are spoiling it for me who never returns anything.” The only MORAL issue we should be getting worried about here, as I see it, the only ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ is one we all need to take responsibility for: the hugely increased transport pollution associated with high levels of deliveries and returns. I find it very difficult to get to physical stores and find online shopping a great opportunity to get things from near and far, and would not be able to do this without easy return policies. So I increase the retailers’ business and help to keep the business commercially sustainable which benefits returners and non-returners alike. Nevertheless I am guilty of being a contributor to global pollution by doing so and I aim to reduce not just my returning but also my shopping in the first place.


* Note that this is not something that applies to purchase or return of second hand goods from private seller on resale platforms unless in SNAD cases; that’s obviously a different point which I only mention here for the sake of clarity, just in case anyone is thinking about it.View attachment 4446668

Great post!

Until recently Nordstrom had an unlimited return policy that was often abused. They would take back shoes that had obviously been worn a lot. It was something they were known for.

Coach used to have an unlimited return policy. That changed about a year or more ago.

Zappos has a 1 year return policy. If you buy on leap year's day, you have 4 years!

Tradesy, which in an online selling platform like ebay, has a 4 day window for returns, but they allowed returns for any reason and it is free. When I first started selling there, I sold many items to the same buyer. Then I noticed that she returned them. I couldn't understand why, as they were new scarves, so I called Tradesy. They said she bought tons of items and returned a lot so they weren't concerned. I imagine she might have been a personal shopper or something like that. Anyway, the unlimited free returns had a toll on Tradesy's bottom line and they initiated more restrictive return policies.

I've been in stores where people returned things that had been purchased years earlier. One way retailers deal with this if they have no time limit is to only offer the lowest selling price of the item, so the purchaser may not get back what they originally spent. That is a deterrent.

If you return items without a receipt in Target, they require your driver's license and limit how many returns you can make without a receipt.

Even with the high cost of returns, it is more profitable to run an online business than a brick and mortar.

 

[Annie J]

Great post!

Until recently Nordstrom had an unlimited return policy that was often abused. They would take back shoes that had obviously been worn a lot. It was something they were known for.

Coach used to have an unlimited return policy. That changed about a year or more ago.

Zappos has a 1 year return policy. If you buy on leap year's day, you have 4 years!

Tradesy, which in an online selling platform like ebay, has a 4 day window for returns, but they allowed returns for any reason and it is free. When I first started selling there, I sold many items to the same buyer. Then I noticed that she returned them. I couldn't understand why, as they were new scarves, so I called Tradesy. They said she bought tons of items and returned a lot so they weren't concerned. I imagine she might have been a personal shopper or something like that. Anyway, the unlimited free returns had a toll on Tradesy's bottom line and they initiated more restrictive return policies.

I've been in stores where people returned things that had been purchased years earlier. One way retailers deal with this if they have no time limit is to only offer the lowest selling price of the item, so the purchaser may not get back what they originally spent. That is a deterrent.

If you return items without a receipt in Target, they require your driver's license and limit how many returns you can make without a receipt.

Even with the high cost of returns, it is more profitable to run an online business than a brick and mortar.

Thanks, Whateve. I read your posts often and always find them full of good sense and moderation. The examples you mention here are interesting ones.

You’ve just reminded of something Marks & Spencer used to do in the UK, too, before they introduced a different policy. I think I’m remembering correctly, that this has changed, but haven’t shopped there for a while. They had an open ended timeframe, but sometimes people would find out that the £99.99 item they brought in to return 12 months later was now priced at £00.05 or similar and that was what they’d get back! Quite a handy deterrent!

 

[whateve]

Thanks, Whateve. I read your posts often and always find them full of good sense and moderation. The examples you mention here are interesting ones.

You’ve just reminded of something Marks & Spencer used to do in the UK, too, before they introduced a different policy. I think I’m remembering correctly, that this has changed, but haven’t shopped there for a while. They had an open ended timeframe, but sometimes people would find out that the £99.99 item they brought in to return 12 months later was now priced at £00.05 or similar and that was what they’d get back! Quite a handy deterrent!

Thanks for the compliment! That makes me feel good!

 

[2cello]

Having a very high buy and return rate is a form of gluttony. So it is a bit of a moral issue I think.

 

[Annie J]

Having a very high buy and return rate is a form of gluttony. So it is a bit of a moral issue I think.

It’s all a simple business issue, isn’t it? That’s not a statement, it is my belief, but I’m also asking anybody if there’s some point I’ve missed. As for whether some people abuse the system and spoil it for the rest of us, well, that’s for the retailers to work out as part of their business model and it’s really not a “You with your returns are spoiling it for me who never returns anything.” The only MORAL issue we should be getting worried about here, as I see it, the only ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ is one we all need to take responsibility for: the hugely increased transport pollution associated with high levels of deliveries and returns. I find it very difficult to get to physical stores and find online shopping a great opportunity to get things from near and far, and would not be able to do this without easy return policies. So I increase the retailers’ business and help to keep the business commercially sustainable which benefits returners and non-returners alike. Nevertheless I am guilty of being a contributor to global pollution by doing so and I aim to reduce not just my returning but also my shopping in the first place.
.View attachment 4446668

We actually agree!

I did mention this significant moral issue in my post (as in the excerpt from it I’ve quoted above), but was pointing out that any moral issue with returns doesn’t lie where people have been implying it does, and isn’t what people have been becoming irate with each other about at times here, which appears to me based on a misperception about straightforward business viability.

Where you use the term ‘gluttony’ I would use ‘unsustainable overconsumption’. I personally do not believe gluttony is a sin or moral issue in a religious sense, but I would consider - in this topic - unjustifiable levels of both purchasing and returns immoral if they have a negative impact upon the planet’s ecology, and by pollution upon all people’s wellbeing, so essentially we have said the same thing, I believe?

So to summarise, in that respect I agree with you. The gluttony, as you put it, is significant in its effects: in the impact via pollution on the planet, ecology, people, animals and nature, which is the moral issue I did point out in my post. I think that is the only significant moral issue involved here, as I said, and I think my own consumer behaviour is as immoral in this sense as that of a person who returns every single thing they ever buy.

There is a possibly more minor moral issue involved in the actions of a customer who returns goods when they have spoilt them; this is essentially theft, which is clearly immoral, and is an act which makes the retailer the victim, but is less of a problem in a business sense, because businesses can and do calculate for it as a predictable part of their model and they can take appropriate action against customers who do this, just as they can against customers who return such a high proportion that, if scaled up across multiple customers, would start to make business unviable. If these spoilt goods are then passed on to further customers as new, the moral responsibility for that particular unethical action lies with the business.

I was disagreeing with the tone of some of this thread and others, that there is a moral issue involved in the behaviour of somebody who returns, even sometimes at high volume, for valid reasons within the terms of business, regarding their behaviour towards other customers or towards businesses, insofar as some people have seemed to be angry at each other that this affects pricing for all customers, the condition of items purchased, or profitability. Those aspects are simple business ones in the control of the business, and are in reality unlikely to have the kind of absolute negative impact upon other individuals that some people have appeared unhappy about.

So as far as the financial impact of returns upon, or any impact on the quality of shopping experience of, other customers goes, which is largely what has been debated in this thread and others, and seems to get unnecessarily personal and antagonistic sometimes, these are in reality not truly moral matters, as some people perceive them to be. They are simply operational matters relating to behavioural realities for a business to assess and incorporate. Logically, that is on the basis that the facility of return is a key aspect of what makes the business viable and profitable at all, and therefore benefits consumers of all persuasions, even those who never return, as the business would likely not exist without it and nobody would be able to buy anything much online.

The moral problem with gluttony, or overconsumption, is a more general and widespread one which applies to all our consumer behaviour, including my own, wherever or however we shop, high returns of online purchases being just one factor among others. It all contributes to overproduction, overconsumption, subsequent waste, transport and industrial pollution.

Personally I feel pretty guilty about overconsumption, but so far have failed to change my level of consumption to a very significant degree.

 

[ultravisitor]

You can't have it both ways, why should the store, which is not a charity organisation bear all costs?

For the same reason that people who claim that not having a Nordstrom in their area is the reason why they have to abuse the system: materialism and entitlement.

 

[3threebabies]

I agree with those above who mention influencers and resellers affecting return cycles and policies for regular people in a way that no one could have imagined even 5 and 10 years ago.

I picked up glasses today, and one of the opticians left a message for a customer who returned a whole bunch of contacts. 2 sets were ordered in 2018, and were being refunded for a credit. There were several other sets not being refunded. Two of the sets expired in 2015. I asked the optician if this was a regular situation or a one-off, she said it wasn’t normal but is for this customer.

I mean no disrespect to previous posters, but some people are often unaware of how their behavior affects others. I think online shopping especially promotes a dichotomy in the shopping experience. Since you do not see the sales associate face to face, you may buy and return a lot more than if you had to look directly at an employee. They would be shocked at their behavior in real life, but internet anonymity changes normal behavior. Similar to how normally reticent and polite people in real life become total a**** on social media and Internet forums.

Also, for some people, mental and physical illness manifests into shopping addiction. The internet make it easy to buy way more than ever needed and makes it east to hide—even from loved ones. More than likely, the lady with 3 bags of shoes was suffering. Granted, there is a slight chance they were bought for a wedding party or similar, but it isn’t likely. As a former retail manager, situations like that are crushing. If you have never worked in retail, you have no idea for just the amount of labor to correctly process and reinventory a return that size.

I worked for a company who previously had a return policy similar to Nordstrom and LL Bean. It would make me sick the things I returned with a smile for a full refund. One of the worst was a woman who slashed the leather soles of her shoes with a razor blade as soon as she got them home. She didn’t want to slide. She once returned 3 pairs of brand new full price shoes. They changed the policy about 10 years ago, and even restricted returns even more since.

 

[Annie J]

I agree with those above who mention influencers and resellers affecting return cycles and policies for regular people in a way that no one could have imagined even 5 and 10 years ago.

I picked up glasses today, and one of the opticians left a message for a customer who returned a whole bunch of contacts. 2 sets were ordered in 2018, and were being refunded for a credit. There were several other sets not being refunded. Two of the sets expired in 2015. I asked the optician if this was a regular situation or a one-off, she said it wasn’t normal but is for this customer.

I mean no disrespect to previous posters, but some people are often unaware of how their behavior affects others. I think online shopping especially promotes a dichotomy in the shopping experience. Since you do not see the sales associate face to face, you may buy and return a lot more than if you had to look directly at an employee. They would be shocked at their behavior in real life, but internet anonymity changes normal behavior. Similar to how normally reticent and polite people in real life become total a**** on social media and Internet forums.

Also, for some people, mental and physical illness manifests into shopping addiction. The internet make it easy to buy way more than ever needed and makes it east to hide—even from loved ones. More than likely, the lady with 3 bags of shoes was suffering. Granted, there is a slight chance they were bought for a wedding party or similar, but it isn’t likely. As a former retail manager, situations like that are crushing. If you have never worked in retail, you have no idea for just the amount of labor to correctly process and reinventory a return that size.

I worked for a company who previously had a return policy similar to Nordstrom and LL Bean. It would make me sick the things I returned with a smile for a full refund. One of the worst was a woman who slashed the leather soles of her shoes with a razor blade as soon as she got them home. She didn’t want to slide. She once returned 3 pairs of brand new full price shoes. They changed the policy about 10 years ago, and even restricted returns even more since.

I think you make such good points, especially in raising the psychology of the whole thing; it must be so important. It’s the third big element here, do you think? Business (viability/profitability), morality (which parts of it are moral questions, which just business?), psychology (what’s reasonable behaviour, when are we going over the top with shopping, what makes us do it, how do we exercise control over it?)

Quite a lot of returning is perfectly fair and reasonable in the business sense. While I wouldn’t compare the returns with online purchasing directly with those in face-to-face shopping in a business sense, because online shopping wouldn’t be a viable business without straightforward returns (shopping online, my bedroom/closet has to become the fitting or dressing room), there is as you insightfully point out a marked psychological disconnect in the online environment that we don’t experience face-to-face, and the lack of those interpersonal cues encourages or allows over-ordering and over-returning. There must be a psychologist out there reading this thread who could give us a proper professional analysis of that!

Quite apart from those who may have a compulsive habit, creating or masking psychological distress, the cry for help, the unhealthy, secretive hoarding, getting into debt and so on, all worrying enough, from the start there’s also the simple, basic facilitating fact that it is just so easy to buy something in a split second online (“Oh, I really shouldn’t. I don’t need it. I won’t. Oops, I just did.”).

Add to this mix the toxic world of “influencers”, as you point out, and we’ve arrived in a really strange place my parents’ generation wouldn’t have recognised, and I struggle to understand in middle age, my own sometimes really unjustifiable shopping notwithstanding (I am frequently limited by pain and insomnia. I do online retail therapy. Bad concept. No excuse. I’m already selling off many of my own purchases online and giving a lot away, too. I can try to make myself feel a little less guilty about it by giving proceeds to charities, but really ... Necessary? Healthy? Good for the planet?). This has exploded. Nobody anywhere would have given this much attention to ... shopping ... when I was a teenager (maybe a few dictators and their wives, not many of the rest of us!).

I find online shopping useful. I don’t go along with the idea that people who return too much spoil it for other shoppers, as is sometimes argued in this thread and others. It’s a straightforward enough business issue; I already put this in probably too much detail in earlier posts. (I just might add another thought, that this kind of easy-return online business may cause difficulties for smaller retailers who will struggle to compete, but that’s not strictly relevant here.) But I completely agree that what has essentially become a dominant culture of too much consumption and materialism is a big worry.

Perhaps it’s getting too far off topic because the thread started with a query about a specific worry of OP, or in relation to a letter OP had seen, about whether people may or may not get warning letters and get banned from shopping at Nordstrom. It did soon develop into discussion of the rights and wrongs of it all though, and these issues have arisen from that. I hope it hasn’t hijacked OP’s thread too much.

 

[Sparkletastic]

I’m just floored. People have return rates of 50 - 94% and feel surprised that a store doesn’t want them as a customer? People buy items with no intention of keeping them just to try them on then return? People feel entitled to large numbers of returns because they choose to live in a rural area?

Are you all that clueless that you don’t know how business works? Your so called “free shipping” is paid for by other shoppers. There is no “free”. So, I don’t want you shopping there either. Here, here for Nordstrom getting rid of you and keeping my prices lower and retaining some semblance of a return policy for when it truly is needed.

The entitlement here is rampant. The company has a right to make money. It also has a right to shut down shoppers that cost them more money than they are worth. And, a company is not your personal try-on-clothes-hobby enabler. You don’t get to enjoy the not-really-free shipping both ways to satisfy your vanity moment. Lastly, if you choose to live in a rural environment (I’m assuming you aren’t imprisoned) you still don’t get to abuse a return policy. Be a big girl or boy like the rest of us who don’t live in NY, LA, Paris, etc. - drive or fly to good shopping and / or learn the brands that consistently give you a good fit and order those.

Smh! This isn’t angry vitriol. This is a whole lot of incredulous disdain for poor behavior. And, a few amazed chuckles that people think / act this way.

 

[MontaukWaves]

I think everyone has made good points here. I don't blame Nordstrom and other stores for re-thinking their limitless return policy. It worked for them for a long while, but apparently they've decided no longer. They're a business, after all. The main thing I take issue with is banning customers without warning. I think some people (key emphasis on some) don't realize how far they've slid into unhealthy and questionable shopping practices. Being on a forum like this, for example, normalizes lots of buying, trying, returning. I think it would make more sense, and sit better with a lot of people, if the stores would give a warning to a customer - Your return rate is XX, and if it continues please know that you may not be able to shop here any longer - instead of an instant outright ban.

 

[Anesthestia]

After reading this topic a little while ago, I had some thoughts about my purchasing habits. I'm often unsure of my sizing but find myself lazy to return, so instead of ordering multiple shipments, I order one shipment in which I'll order items I'm not sure about in two sizes, then keep the one that fits better. Maybe a better thing to do would be to just order in one size, then return / exchange after if needed, but I'm often impatient.

I think they look at the dollar sales - the aggregated dollar amount of the items you keep, compared to the dollar amount of the items you returned.

I feel there's no right or wrong answer to the good discussion that's been going on in this topic, but now I'm concerned; do stores really calculate using the dollar amount of items kept compared to dollar amount of items returned? I would have assumed it would be the number of items, not dollar amount. And, do they calculate the returns made on their mistake?
Ex. I just returned one nordstrom top with missing stitching on one arm, and another nordstrom blazer with the security tag still on... Oh, nordstrom.

 

[MontaukWaves]

After reading this topic a little while ago, I had some thoughts about my purchasing habits. I'm often unsure of my sizing but find myself lazy to return, so instead of ordering multiple shipments, I order one shipment in which I'll order items I'm not sure about in two sizes, then keep the one that fits better. Maybe a better thing to do would be to just order in one size, then return / exchange after if needed, but I'm often impatient.


I feel there's no right or wrong answer to the good discussion that's been going on in this topic, but now I'm concerned; do stores really calculate using the dollar amount of items kept compared to dollar amount of items returned? I would have assumed it would be the number of items, not dollar amount. And, do they calculate the returns made on their mistake?
Ex. I just returned one nordstrom top with missing stitching on one arm, and another nordstrom blazer with the security tag still on... Oh, nordstrom.

I could be wrong - something please correct if you know otherwise - but I think it's based on dollar amount for some stores. Which makes it a little trickier if you're buying high end pieces; you'd have to return like five mid-end bags (or more) to equal the same dollar return amount as a Celine bag.