Unluxurious policies from luxury brands

[Christofle]

May I ask, lots of people here in this thread and elsewhere talk of store policies. Aren't there laws that regulate this sort of thing? I understand that they differ from country to country, or state to state; but surely in most places, there must be some sort of regulations that overrule any store policies? Like, for instance, 14 days to exchange or return an item if it hasn't been used and has all the packaging and tags attached?

As you noted regulations can very widely across jurisdictions therefore Caveat Emptor feels like the rule of thumb to go by.

E.G.

Return Policies and Refunds - FindLaw

while merchants are not required to accept returns (unless there is a defect, in which case it may be covered by an implied warranty), certain laws govern the disclosure of refund and return policies. The following information covers the basics of refunds and return policies in general.

www.findlaw.com

Office of Consumer Affairs

Practical tools and information to help protect consumer interests. Published and designed by the Office of Consumer Affairs of Industry Canada.

www.ic.gc.ca

Canada Goose Takes Heat for No Refund Policy in China

Canada Goose is under fire again after refusing to refund a Chinese customer. How will this affect the parka maker during its peak selling season?

jingdaily.com

 

[totally]

JMO, I think such returns (if someone changes their mind /buyers remorse) coupled with skyrocketing prices, both exacerbate a prospective buyers obsession with microscopic flaws .
not a good thing. For myself, I try to be very sure before purchase and avoid returns. @redney posted an article re the environmental and economic issues of returns

The Nasty Logistics of Returning Your Too-Small Pants

What happens to the stuff you order online after you send it back?

www.theatlantic.com

in this thread;

people who abuse liberal return policies

Those are the folks THAT DO it!!! Can't even say how many of my friends who worked retail said that the "Hollywood" crowd was the absolute worst in being cheap and doing sh1t like this .. especially around awards season! UFB .. they can freakin' afford it and they do crap like this .. that is...

forum.purseblog.com

Luxury is also about sustainability, and I personally do not worry about microscopic flaws or return for reason of change of mind. But, of course there are legitimate reasons to return and YMMV

I think true luxury is about sustainability. Almost everything Chanel, LVMH, and Kering does is not sustainable.

Chanel is puts out 6 collection/shows a year. I'm sure a lot of people buy RTW, but for the most part these shows are a marketing tactic to sell accessories, which are a much more effective revenue driver. Producing runway garments and staging shows for marketing is incredibly wasteful. See the article below that breaks it down.

Fashion's Paradox: Forget Garments, It's Mostly Accessories that Fuel Big Brands' Bottom Lines - The Fashion Law

“Most runway pieces never get produced. They’re marketing exercises. The legacy brands aren’t in the fashion business anymore. They’re selling handbags,” Cameron Silver, founder of Decades, the Los Angeles vintage clothing store, told the Daily Beast last year. Silver is referring to a marked...

www.thefashionlaw.com

There's a lot of focus on waste from returned products in this thread, but what about plain unsold, unused product that gets burned or destroyed?

Burberry says it won’t destroy unsold merch anymore. But plenty of other fashion brands still do.

An expert explains why Burberry, Cartier, Louis Vuitton, and Michael Kors would rather destroy merchandise than lose prestige.

www.vox.com

Dior, YSL, Chanel and every luxury brand that licenses their name for makeup lines is producing insane amounts of waste.

Beauty has a waste problem, and it’s not packaging

Brands including Prose and Pure Culture make personalised product formulas using customer data. They’re also creating less waste.

www.voguebusiness.com

 

[jellyv]

I think true luxury is about sustainability.

Your preferred definition, but historically not remotely the case. I'm not arguing it shouldn't be about this, but to acknowledge that getting luxury houses on board with sustainability is rather like expecting more diverse hiring. A process enhanced by emerging social preferences, but not historically in place. And certain fields are slow to adapt.

 

[doni]

May I ask, lots of people here in this thread and elsewhere talk of store policies. Aren't there laws that regulate this sort of thing? I understand that they differ from country to country, or state to state; but surely in most places, there must be some sort of regulations that overrule any store policies? Like, for instance, 14 days to exchange or return an item if it hasn't been used and has all the packaging and tags attached?

But brands may go above and beyond what the laws require. For example, in the EU, there is no obligation to refund if goods are not faulty, with the exception of goods purchased online or by phone order (in which case you have 14 days to return with no reason). But stores may choose to offer full refunds as a matter of policy, or extend the return window to a month or whatever. The law is the minimum requirement.

 

[TC1]

I can't wrap my head around someone that wants to be verbally told about a "return" policy while checking out. That seems a bit tacky and to be honest..takes away from said "luxury" purchase. If you want to ask, yes by all means you should be told...but announcing it? Nah.
I believe most policies are in place to avoid the return of goods for buyers remorse. I ALSO don't want to be buying a multi-thousand dollar item that has been bought and returned.

 

[IntheOcean]

For example, in the EU, there is no obligation to refund if goods are not faulty, with the exception of goods purchased online or by phone order (in which case you have 14 days to return with no reason).

Didn't know that, thank you! Yes, that makes sense.

 

[totally]

Your preferred definition, but historically not remotely the case. I'm not arguing it shouldn't be about this, but to acknowledge that getting luxury houses on board with sustainability is rather like expecting more diverse hiring. A process enhanced by emerging social preferences, but not historically in place. And certain fields are slow to adapt.

I don't really have an opinion on whether luxury houses "should" be sustainable or not. My point was that the luxury houses are inherently unsustainable, and their return policies aren't designed to encourage sustainability but to maximize profits. The best way to be sustainable is to shop less and mindfully, from any retailer.

 

[totally]

I can't wrap my head around someone that wants to be verbally told about a "return" policy while checking out. That seems a bit tacky and to be honest..takes away from said "luxury" purchase. If you want to ask, yes by all means you should be told...but announcing it? Nah.
I believe most policies are in place to avoid the return of goods for buyers remorse. I ALSO don't want to be buying a multi-thousand dollar item that has been bought and returned.

You're entitled to your own opinion. I think it's tacky to hide your return policies when charging thousands of dollars for a bag. Bear in mind their policies weren't written anywhere as I've mentioned multiple times in this thread. I also think it's tacky to put an item "on hold" for me for 24h, let other people try it on and scuff it in that time, and then try to sell it to me for thousands of dollars. Like you, I'm not interested in a multi-thousand dollar item that is being misrepresented as "new".

 

[Christofle]

You're entitled to your own opinion. I think it's tacky to hide your return policies when charging thousands of dollars for a bag. Bear in mind their policies weren't written anywhere as I've mentioned multiple times in this thread. I also think it's tacky to put an item "on hold" for me for 24h, let other people try it on in that time, and then try to sell it to me for thousands of dollars.

That’s odd as items on hold should be removed from the sales floor immediately. That would quite a frustrating situation to encounter! More in line with used car sales lots than what should be happening in a respectable establishment. :/

 

[jellyv]

I don't really have an opinion on whether luxury houses "should" be sustainable or not. My point was that the luxury houses are inherently unsustainable

You just said "I think true luxury is about sustainability"! Of course you have an opinion about it, as both of your last two posts are exactly criticisms of luxury houses in this regard.

 

[totally]

That’s odd as items on hold should be removed from the sales floor immediately. That would quite a frustrating situation to encounter! More in line with used car sales lots than what should be happening in a respectable establishment. :/

It was definitely annoying! I was surprised at how nonchalant she was. She literally told me, another girl tried it on yesterday but I said no, it's the last one and I'm holding it for another girl! I ended up being able to order a new one though, which I'm very happy with.

 

[mewwwie]

I also think it's tacky to put an item "on hold" for me for 24h, let other people try it on and scuff it in that time, and then try to sell it to me for thousands of dollars. Like you, I'm not interested in a multi-thousand dollar item that is being misrepresented as "new".

This is one of the reasons I prefer ordering clothing and accessory online. So many times I go to stores and see damage on items they are selling because everyone gets to touch or try on. Just the other day I was at Nordstrom and saw somebody carrying a probably $$$ dress across the store but let it drag all over the floor. Nope. I just don't like buying something in store when everyone has touched it and would usually rather take a gamble on an online order

 

[totally]

You just said "I think true luxury is about sustainability"! Of course you have an opinion about it, as both of your last two posts are exactly criticisms of luxury houses in this regard.

Hmmm I see how that can be confusing. When I refer to "true luxury", I refer to things like my bespoke suit, custom furniture, classic items designed to last and can be repaired. I'm contrasting that with luxury brands (e.g. Chanel) that make more collections than there are seasons and constantly release new products. I suppose these brands sometimes make custom garments and products that can be repaired too, which is fair to point out.

When I say I have no opinion, it means that I didn't express a view on whether these brands should or shouldn't make these collections, burn unsold merchandise, or release makeup lines. These are just things that they do, as reported in the articles above. But if we're saying a stricter return policy supports sustainability, I think it's fair to point out ways in which the brands aren't sustainable.

In general, I think it's really difficult to transform the luxury brands' current business model to be sustainable because it's usually not profitable. Runway shows results in more exposure for the brand. Unsold merchandise ruins their brand image. Licensing the brand to make high margin beauty products will result in more sales and more profits. I struggle with wanting a Chanel, an LVMH, or a Kering to be more sustainable because I understand exactly why they aren't. I can focus on my own consumption habits and not impulse purchase.

I hope that made sense! It's all a very interesting discussion to me. My job involves finding and implementing cost savings so I'm fascinated by how the luxury houses do business and make money.

 

[Christofle]

Hmmm I see how that can be confusing. When I refer to "true luxury", I refer to things like my bespoke suit, custom furniture, classic items designed to last and can be repaired. I'm contrasting that with luxury brands (e.g. Chanel) that make more collections than there are seasons and constantly release new products. I suppose these brands sometimes make custom garments and products that can be repaired too, which is fair to point out.

When I say I have no opinion, it means that I didn't express a view on whether these brands should or shouldn't make these collections, burn unsold merchandise, or release makeup lines. These are just things that they do, as reported in the articles above. But if we're saying a stricter return policy supports sustainability, I think it's fair to point out ways in which the brands aren't sustainable.

In general, I think it's really difficult to transform the luxury brands' current business model to be sustainable because it's usually not profitable. Runway shows results in more exposure for the brand. Unsold merchandise ruins their brand image. Licensing the brand to make high margin beauty products will result in more sales and more profits. I struggle with wanting a Chanel, an LVMH, or a Kering to be more sustainable because I understand exactly why they aren't. I can focus on my own consumption habits and not impulse purchase.

I hope that made sense! It's all a very interesting discussion to me. My job involves finding and implementing cost savings so I'm fascinated by how the luxury houses do business and make money.

Brands are beginning to shred their old merchandise to manufacture new items with the recycled fibres or creating new items with leftover material (e.g. Petit H.)

What I find interesting though is that based on comments of several companies runway shows in the past two seasons is that some clients appear to be disillusioned by the use of recycled fibres and fabrics in the multi thousand dollar RTW items.

 

[880]

I agree with @jellyv and @totally that true luxury should be sustainable, by its very nature (like bespoke suits), but these premier big brands are not sustainable simply bc it’s not profitable. Its questionable that these brands even provide a luxury experience or product. I also agree that the best way to be sustainable is to shop less and mindfully, from any retailer. IMO this includes fewer purchases and fewer returns. For those of us who love fashion RTW, you try to pick things that are both exciting and that will stand the test of time. It is hopefully a bit better than buying fast fashion.