Nordstrom banned from shopping from their online and store

[EdnaMode]

Costco is another retailer with a very liberal return policy. I saw a guy return a broken wine glass......it's a wonderful policy and I'm sure they make plenty of money but some people do abuse it.

I was going to say Costco too bc once I saw a guy return 5+ packs of their ribeye steaks! Probably a caterer and didn't end up using it. Another time I saw a guy return like 6 outdoor heaters, some all banged up! When he was pulling those things in, the people at Costco were talking to each other saying "that's the guy" etc. Despicable!

 

[JazzyMac]

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

Very intelligent post.

 

[sdkitty]

I was going to say Costco too bc once I saw a guy return 5+ packs of their ribeye steaks! Probably a caterer and didn't end up using it. Another time I saw a guy return like 6 outdoor heaters, some all banged up! When he was pulling those things in, the people at Costco were talking to each other saying "that's the guy" etc. Despicable!

the story is out there that some person or persons returned live Christmas trees after Christmas......talk about taking advantage - and having no shame

 

[JazzyMac]

Nah. Monitoring the customers like that is akin to babysitting. People who believe that makes sense are basically saying "I have problems controlling myself. However, I am entitled to shop here, so it is your job to make sure I can be respectful. Otherwise, I should be allowed to behave however I want."

Really, if you need someone to babysit your shopping, please reexamine your relationship with material goods.

If you have to try it on in person to make sure the size is absolutely right, then maybe it's not something you should get unless you can examine it in person. Waiting to see it in person--and possibly not getting it if you can't examine it in person--is what makes sense. Again, if that offends someone, then that person should examine his or her issues with entitlement and materialism.

This is not a logical fix to the discussion at hand. Every single designer or brand differs in their sizes and fits for their clothes. Some designers even have different sizing for each of their outfits. And let's not mention 'vanity sizing.' When you add in all that, I am not certain why someone would not try on the clothes and then return them. There have been a few times when I needed something to wear for an event, and I went online, AND bought two of the same item to try on. Some stores have chat agents who are not helpful at all. They know nothing about the clothes except what is online. No, I could not drive to the shop. And no, I could not "wait, until I took a plane trip somewhere." If the shops had a problem with customers trying on clothes, they would not have dressing rooms. A person's home is their dressing room. Note: I said home. Not club, restaurant, car, etc.

What boggles my mind are all these customers in this thread acting as if these shops are cutting them a check for defending their honors. It costs $10 to make a dress, and $500 to buy them each. I am not saying that people should abuse the system; I'm saying that shipping is a small overhead for their return.

These shops have fraud teams, legal teams, compliance teams. They don't need average members of purse forum policing other people's behavior.

 

[jellyv]

I think I will step back now, I seem to be returning to the same points

Good LORD I need a nap.
--
I think Nordstrom is a slow hand with banning. It takes really becoming noticeable to them. And it's their corporate call how they execute this, period full stop.

 

[JazzyMac]

It’s not Nordstrom’s fault you live far from a physical location. And yes we coastal elites do forget about these rural segments bc they don’t have much in terms of population. There’s a reason they don’t have high end designer boutiques. I don’t think they are catering to that market segment.

Gonna need to request you simmah down that sardonic to a Level 2. Please and thanks.

 

[EdnaMode]

the story is out there that some person or persons returned live Christmas trees after Christmas......talk about taking advantage - and having no shame

Oh I remember reading that in the news! It's crazy. No shame!

 

[Annie J]

Very intelligent post.

Kind comment, thanks.

 

[DD101]

......The stores are pretty much shells of their former selves, so if you go there you'll have the opportunity to try on two things, in the wrong colors.

Wow what a heated topic! I live very close to a Nordstrom, they are my favorite store and I'd say 95% of all my clothing comes from here. That said, my store does not carry a lot of what I want or see online. I look online and then I click to see if it's available at my store, and typically it isn't. So I order online.

Now 1 of 2 things happen next. If it's a brand I am familiar with, I can easily order my size and it will fit and I will be happy. But sometimes it's a new brand I am not familiar with, I really like the item and don't want to risk them selling out of the size that will fit me, so I order in 2 sizes and return one. Because I live so close I will usually return it in person.

If you are having online shopping, then this will happen (ordering 2 in 2 different sizes). No one likes to do this....I know I don't, but I have to in order to get the one that fits me.

What I never understood is why measurements are not included with the description. Nordies is usually great about stating how long a blouse or top is. But how wide is it? How long or short are the sleeves? (I have long arms), How wide are the sleeves? (I once bought a jacket online from Nordies and the sleeves were unbelievably narrow and tight). If the proper measurements were provided, I honestly feel this would help decrease the number of returns. This would be especially helpful because sometimes a brand will change fit models, and the fit of the item will be way off from what it used to be (this has happened to me with jeans).

Now people who return because they just wants to take a picture in it, or just abuse the return policy for whatever reason - they should be easy enough for the store to spot and ban. But like another poster said, if the stores weren't making money by selling online they would stop. And as another poster said, free shipping really isn't free. We all pay for it one way or another.

Oh and I will just add one more thing......I used to love shopping in the mall - loved it! But as they add onto the already sprawling malls, we loose parking spots. And if parking isn't easy, I won't go. Also I find more and more these days sales people who are borderline rude at times, busy chatting with other sales people, or don't care at all and must really dislike their job. These are things that have kept me from the malls.....and I live in an area where we have several malls to choose from within minutes of each other.

 

[JazzyMac]

Wow what a heated topic! I live very close to a Nordstrom, they are my favorite store and I'd say 95% of all my clothing comes from here. That said, my store does not carry a lot of what I want or see online. I look online and then I click to see if it's available at my store, and typically it isn't. So I order online.

Now 1 of 2 things happen next. If it's a brand I am familiar with, I can easily order my size and it will fit and I will be happy. But sometimes it's a new brand I am not familiar with, I really like the item and don't want to risk them selling out of the size that will fit me, so I order in 2 sizes and return one. Because I live so close I will usually return it in person.

If you are having online shopping, then this will happen (ordering 2 in 2 different sizes). No one likes to do this....I know I don't, but I have to in order to get the one that fits me.

What I never understood is why measurements are not included with the description. Nordies is usually great about stating how long a blouse or top is. But how wide is it? How long or short are the sleeves? (I have long arms), How wide are the sleeves? (I once bought a jacket online from Nordies and the sleeves were unbelievably narrow and tight). If the proper measurements were provided, I honestly feel this would help decrease the number of returns. This would be especially helpful because sometimes a brand will change fit models, and the fit of the item will be way off from what it used to be (this has happened to me with jeans).

Now people who return because they just wants to take a picture in it, or just abuse the return policy for whatever reason - they should be easy enough for the store to spot and ban. But like another poster said, if the stores weren't making money by selling online they would stop. And as another poster said, free shipping really isn't free. We all pay for it one way or another.

Oh and I will just add one more thing......I used to love shopping in the mall - loved it! But as they add onto the already sprawling malls, we loose parking spots. And if parking isn't easy, I won't go. Also I find more and more these days sales people who are borderline rude at times, busy chatting with other sales people, or don't care at all and must really dislike their job. These are things that have kept me from the malls.....and I live in an area where we have several malls to choose from within minutes of each other.

Adding measurements would TOTALLY decrease returns. And yet, the brand stores still don't do it. I wonder why. Is it that making a return to a store adds a repeat customer? If we were to purchase based the perfect measurements and the best design, I imagine stores might lose their customer base. Hm, that's something to ponder.

 

[Lake Effect]

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

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.

And this is meant respectfully, it could speak to mental health and impulse control regarding spending, accumulating tendencies, etc.

 

[Annie J]

Adding measurements would TOTALLY decrease returns. And yet, the brand stores still don't do it. I wonder why. Is it that making a return to a store adds a repeat customer? If we were to purchase based the perfect measurements and the best design, I imagine stores might lose their customer base. Hm, that's something to ponder.

It helps SO much to reduce returns if they give measurements.

Net-a-Porter, Matches Fashion and MyTheresa all give really accurate information and makes it so much easier and my returns are lower at those, but still hardly non-existent - they seem pretty happy going by their approach to my accounts ... They somehow still seem to want make it easier and easier for me to buy from them ... Barneys generally seems to offer proper full measurements too.

I can sort of see why Farfetch doesn’t give the best sizing information because the products are sold from such a wide array of independent boutiques worldwide, it would be hard to achieve. So I return more to them. Doesn’t seem to worry them - they still offer me extensive privileges.

Brands aren’t always consistent through all of their products as you said, so a brand sizing guide is too blunt a tool. Saks gives rudimentary information (“Item is about xx long and model is 5’9” tall) and that fit predictor tool which doesn’t work, for me, anyway! Nordstrom offers the ‘true to size’ sort of thing, which is only marginally useful. I can only think as you say that it must suit them in some respect to deal with the returns more than to measure every product in detail to help us reduce them.

They certainly know how to keep my relationship with them going ...

 

[DD101]

I guess the stores really need to dive deep into why there are so many returns. If it's simple abuse, out of control impulse buys where that shopper returns almost everything, then cut them off for a while......maybe they can redeem themselves at a later point in time.

If it's someone like me who will sometimes buy the exact same thing in 2 different sizes - then they can easily figure out how to help this shopper - provide measurements.

Force the clothing manufacturers to be precise and consistent with sizes (ie: they all measure the same).

 

[Annie J]

And this is meant respectfully, it could speak to mental health and impulse control regarding spending, accumulating tendencies, etc.

Yes absolutely. @3threebabies wrote a good post about this a couple of pages back.

 

[Annie J]

Adding measurements would TOTALLY decrease returns. And yet, the brand stores still don't do it. I wonder why. Is it that making a return to a store adds a repeat customer? If we were to purchase based the perfect measurements and the best design, I imagine stores might lose their customer base. Hm, that's something to ponder.

I’d completely forgotten something else. There’s a growing number of online retailers offering a ‘try before you buy’ service. You order without paying, they’ll run a soft credit check via a payment services provider, they deliver, you send back anything you don’t want, and only after a set period are you charged for what you keep (30 days with TopShop). They can refuse you the service if they decide it’s being unprofitably overused. TopShop screenshot below. Seems reasonable to believe they view offering such an easy way to buy and return as beneficial to business, given they’re not even worried about whether you pay before you’ve decided to keep something?