Here's the thing: a company can change its policies when it wants. It can enforce its policies however it wants. Customers do not have to like that. If a customer is doing something that is pushing away a customer who they feel is abusive, then it's quite likely the intent. They want you to stop what you're doing and/or go away. You are not that special to them. Yes, you are entitled to shop just as any other customer is, but if the company feels you are not worth the effort, then they don't care about pleasing you anymore.
I think what I posted actually included and rests upon the idea that a company can have a policy and change and apply it how it wishes? The exceptions would be that it should not apply a new policy to a purchase that was made under an old policy, as a matter of contract, and it has to keep its policy compliant with consumer and distance selling law. I didn’t say a customer had to like that, why would I? I just think it would be nice in a human way to reach out with a courteous warning, before banning, I didn’t say it was an obligation. I was trying to frame the statement in a way that addressed yours as clearly and directly as I could, that’s why it was written that way. I was only pointing out the facts and that up to a certain point, it just all has to proceed according to policy and law.
It is nothing but willful ignorance masking entitlement to think that it is acceptable to buy a bunch of things and return 50% or more because "hey, that's shopping and the shipping is free and the customer is always right". I bet a lot of the people who think that way are also the Beckys who always need to speak with management for petty issues that they cause.
I think if you consider what I said justifies or supports entitlement, you maybe misunderstood me. I didn’t say that I thought anything should proceed according to the principle of “the customer is always right”. It’s just a statement of fact that within the business context the customer is entitled to proceed in accordance with the company’s offer to them and policy until the point where the company, in accordance with the policy and any discretionary riders in its T&Cs, decides the customer is no longer behaving in accordance with the contract and can quite legitimately refuse to serve the customer any longer. My point when I said I thought it was reasonable for a company to issue a courteous warning was in response to yours that a customer shouldn’t need “babysitting”. I just rather feel it’s unnecessary to use terms HERE that could be perceived as unkind because we can debate this matter in a pleasant enough way without making anyone who has been taken aback by receiving a warning or a ban feel vilified. I didn’t say that a company is never justified in warning or banning a customer, or has to take their feelings into consideration. Of course it is, and of course it doesn’t.
And the whole "if I don't allow customers to shop however they want, then I may go out of business" line is completely ridiculous. Customers who abuse return policies because "hey, it's their fault they made that the store policy" are costing the company money.
I didn’t say that a company would think "if I don't allow customers to shop however they want, then I may go out of business". I indicated that they may think that could be one of a spectrum of business consequences if they don’t offer a relatively liberal returns policy, will have made a business decision about what type and level of returns policy will make the business viable and profitable and it’s quite likely as a matter of reality that business overall will be greatly reduced if return policies are not reasonably easy, in the context of online shopping. I am not saying they MUST have a liberal policy just because some customers want it, regardless of the benefits to the business. It’s their decision, and it’s a business decision. Which in turn enables them to keep the business going and enables us all to shop from them, which we all want. And that if customers abuse the return policy, costing the company money to an extent that outweighs the benefits to the company of the policy, companies are able to ban those customers. The cost of returns is a part of their business model. They can adapt the model as they wish.
If someone's concern is truly making sure that the company is able to stay in business, then they will not force the company to incur all sorts of fees because they insist on taking advantage of a store's generous policy.
I didn’t say that customers who return a lot would care about keeping the company in business. I said it’s likely that the policy is a huge factor in what keeps the company in business (and that is of benefit therefore to all customers, so we might all care about that). Otherwise they would not have the policy. It’s observation of a probable business reality, not moral justification of poor customer behaviour. A returns policy is not “generous” out of kindness, it is “generous” because it makes business sense overall. If there is someone on here who works in the higher echelons of any of these business, overseeing the whole business practice and finances, it would be great if they could chime in and explain how it actually works in practice and feeds into the big business decisions. I’m not CEO of
Nordstrom, or whatever group they are part of, or of any other retail giant, but am just trying to apply logic. I suspect that if all reasonably liberal return policies were stopped, we would not find prices don’t go down in the way we might imagine. I cannot prove this but it seems logical to me, and it seems likely to be a false basis for the dissatisfaction some shoppers seem to have with others. It will be interesting to see how online retailers deal with this over the next few years, because it’s currently something we hear about in the news quite often and obviously will evolve.
Please stop misrepresenting the issue. No one said that customers are not entitled to shop online for things they cannot easily find in their own areas. You know as well as I do that was not the real issue being discussed. An honest approach to the discussion will recognize that the issue is that some people think that, because they cannot easily find some things, they have to end up shopping in an unreasonable manner that is abusing a company's policy.
I don’t believe I was misrepresenting the issue. Actually I was remembering a post in the thread, where somebody or more people referred to how people who “choose” to live in the country are not thereby entitled to make multiple returns and should “drive or fly to where there is good shopping” and work out what brands will fit them and then only order those. Maybe I should have quoted them to make that clearer. I didn’t want to single anyone out (just as it wasn’t my intention by quoting your post to single you out but to discuss with you because I thought your points were representative of many). And also there have been other comments along the lines of “I don’t care what your circumstances are, it’s not my problem and it’s not the business’s problem.” Well, frankly, even if we do all make a choice about where we live, and not all of us do, and not all of us are very mobile, those people are perfectly entitled to order and return multiples so far as the company’s policy allows them to do it, and the company is perfectly entitled to warn and/or ban them if “abuse” of the policy tips the balance and makes an overall unsustainable impact on the business. Basically, a policy isn’t being abused until the terms and conditions including any built-in discretionary clauses applying are broken. It’s just not a moral issue, it’s a simple business and pragmatic matter.
And no one is actually saying that they think people should absolutely not buy anything online unless they are sure they are going to keep it. Again, that is being reductive of the overall argument.
I was actually responding to what you said yourself about it not making sense to buy something online if you knew fitting might be an issue. There would be very little clothing one could buy online if we applied that. I just don’t think the point applies, because retailers wouldn’t offer the delivery and return service if it didn’t make good business sense. That isn’t reductive, it’s extrapolating.
I haven’t been reductive of the overall argument, I’ve tried to pull the whole thing apart, extrapolate and be logically analytical. I’m not saying I’ve got it all right, that would be terribly arrogant of me. I’m just trying to think it through and respectfully discuss. I was also appealing to people to be less antagonistic towards each other in so doing. I thought we were probably on the same side underneath it all, and might be able to come together on it, maybe encourage some moderation in thought and action in our shopping behaviour but also in our behaviour towards each other here. I think everyone has fair points, but some go further to seemingly unnecessary extremes, in both directions, than others. I think the cost argument is a probable fallacy, and I’m still not clear why so much personal feeling comes into it, unless you’re worried about the planet.
We all shop too much these days. No doubt there are some people here who feel they only ever buy what they truly need and no more, but I find that quite surprising on a forum that’s basically dedicated to luxury shopping. There’s certainly an ecological argument to be made against all our consumption and returns are part of the problem.
I think I will step back now, I seem to be returning to the same points because some have been misunderstood. I came into it out of genuine interest, I hope I’ve said some useful things, and anybody is free to disagree, but I hope it can be done in good spirit.
