17 Aug 2004 | kingbenny said...

I have some friends who treat Wal-Mart the same way... coolers, paintball gear, portable DVD players, you name it, they've bought it, used it, and returned it...

17 Aug 2004 | Josh Williams said...

Sadly, my parents have even done this. I'm glad to know someone still has some morality.

17 Aug 2004 | jupiter said...

And you still call them "friends"? What if you gave them your car for a day and they returned it - unwashed and with no gas?

17 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Nothing wrong with it ... it's part of their culture!

(Just thought I'd be the first to say it)

17 Aug 2004 | justin m said...

I've known people that did this with clothes. Unfortunately it is a fact of life. That is why you can go places like Best Buy and Sears and buy opened packages at a discounted price, people have no morals.

17 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

Nothing wrong with it ... it's part of their culture!
(Just thought I'd be the first to say it) You actually rushed to be the first to say it. What an idiot. (if you actually believe it). But, I will assume that you are adding a bit of comedy to this, cause it worked. I'm laughing out loud!

17 Aug 2004 | Jeff said...

As long as something is possible, there will be people who do it, regardless of morals.

Sad, but true. These folks probably DO think about the ramifications. But only fleetingly, and for them it's a live-by-the-day mentality. Yes, they know that if enough people do this, then the store might change their policy. Worse, returns are an import factor in any retail business and DO affect the bottom line. Most people CAN comprehend this-- even the immoral folks.

But what happens is each person doesn't think that their act will be the one that tips the scale. They don't think that they'll be the one that makes a company say "enough is enough". Or that their act was the last straw and now that company needs to lay off workers or file for bankruptcy.

It's this same kind of thinking that goes into mob mentality. They won't be the one caught looting. They won't be the one caught cheating. They won't be the one caught speeding. And so on and so on.

I'm not equivocating returning used equipment with committing crime. I'm simply equivocating the logic that is used.

17 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

As long as something is possible, there will be people who do it, regardless of morals.

True, but THAT IS what clarifies "morals". The ability to comprehend what is right and wrong.

17 Aug 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

I'm 100% with you on this one, Carlos ;-)

We will all lose out from this behavior if retailers start making it more difficult/inconvenient to return items for legitimate reasons.

This is already the case for software, and while I can understand why, it's still sad. A few years back I tried to upgrade an aging Windows laptop from Win 98 to Win 2000. The laptop maker told me my machine should be compatible so I bought Win 2000 at a Staples store and tried to install it. No luck. When I returned the package, they told me, sorry, you can't return software if the package has been opened. I would have been out a couple hundred bucks if a sympathetic store manager hadn't heard me out and decided to give me a refund.

17 Aug 2004 | Lief said...

Another issue with the suggestion, it'll cost the guy 15% of the cost of the camera. Best Buy won't take back cameras without a stocking charge.
So not only immoral but impractical... Ok, stupid.

17 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

Ok, stupid. NICE!

17 Aug 2004 | Paperhead said...

*wrestles with morals . . .

Aw hell, it was worth it just to see the look on their faces when I returned this on Monday after a weekend of looking spiffy. ;)

17 Aug 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

Actually now that I think about this some more, this might represent a market opportunity.

If many people have only an occasional need for items like digital cameras, paintball gear, portable DVD players, etc., maybe there's a market niche for someone to offer this stuff for short-term rental. What if WalMart and other stores let you either rent or buy certain items in their store, perhaps even offering to apply your rental fee to the purchase of the same equipment if you decided you wanted to keep it?

17 Aug 2004 | karl said...

If the terms of the sale are "you can buy this from us, and you can return it within X days for a full refund", aren't the retailers essentially running a no-markup rental business?

I understand that the people who take advantage of these return policies do, in fact, understand that they have found a loophole and are not purchasing goods as is intended, but doesn't some of the blame fall on the retailers here?

If they implement a a policy of no-questions-asked returns as a way to attract customers who are tired of being hassled over returns when things don't work, they need to accept the downside of people who will purchase an item with no intention of keeping them.

17 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

The blame falls on the retailer because they expect people to act in good faith? Pul-eeze.

People who do sleazy stuff like this are the kind of people who park in the "No Parking" zone to run into Starbucks.

Bastards. Bastards without morals.

17 Aug 2004 | pat said...

The guy was just trying to maximize his profits. Using Best Buy as an externality he has found a way to limit the cost of taking pictures of his friends at a wedding. These motives are nothing compared to the motives of cost cutters like Best Buy and Walmart who use cheap labour costs in other countries to profit off some guy who just wants to remember his friends wedding. If the system allows this action why wouldn't you do it. It's not like Best Buy acts by a moral standard, why should we?

17 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

doesn't some of the blame fall on the retailers here? If they implement a a policy of no-questions-asked returns as a way to attract customers who are tired of being hassled over returns when things don't work, they need to accept the downside of people who will purchase an item with no intention of keeping them. NO! They don't. Jesus! How does a retailer "deserve" this when they are trying to accomodate customers who do the right thing. How do you come to this conclusion?

17 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

But Pat ... true Character, true Honest, true Morals dictates that you do right no matter what others are doing or what others think.

Notice, I did not say it was easy.

17 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Because, Carlos, "we are all victims". That's the mantra of those who look to blame everyone else for their problems/moral shortcomings/what-have-you.

17 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

It's SAD. Really. (OK I'm off to do some work, be back in a few hours) Have fun all.

17 Aug 2004 | Ian McFarlan said...

Outrageous! I can't believe that some people would do such a thing, seriously.

17 Aug 2004 | Tom said...

Carlos, you don't have to respond to every comment with a trite quip.

17 Aug 2004 | anonymous said...

As an Apple Retail employee, it has, since the beginning, to charge a ten percent restocking fee on returned items, and we have never had a problem returning things that have been opened, nor selling the open boxed items at a ten percent discount. Because of this, I've been able to tell customers that if they want to try, say, a couple of different iPod accessories to find out which is best, they can simply pay a few dollars for the opportunity. Retailers, for the most part (I think), have no problem with this sort of thing, and it may even give an opportunity to someone who really wants the product to buy at a discounted rate.

17 Aug 2004 | Bill Brown said...

I had a co-worker (web developer making upwards of $50k/year) who did this all the time. Oh and he also spent an entire day at the movie theater hopping from movie to movie. I never understood him.

I'll second the bastards comment.

17 Aug 2004 | Paperhead said...

Jeez, do we really have to go through this the hard way?

OK. Step One:

Hands up anyone who lives in a capitalist free market economy...

17 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Carlos = 37sig's new moral higher ground?

17 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Tangental to this post, apparently, you can return any size wood scraps back to Home Depot. Apparently, they sell most lumber by the foot, so they take returns by the foot. If you want to sell lumber through HD, then you need to accept these returns.

Could be urban legend, but it's believable. ;o)

17 Aug 2004 | Ben said...

Well, maybe I missed some important childhood lesson, but I don't see anything morally wrong here.

It's best buy. It's walmart. As long as it isn't Mom and Pop's Camera Shop, what's wrong with it?

Who doesn't try to get something for free when they can. It's not stealing from them, its outsmarting them. And if they leave policies in place that make it that easy for me to use a camera for as long as I need it and then return it for a full refund, I'm a frieken MORON IF I DON'T RETURN IT!

Alright, I said my piece.

17 Aug 2004 | SH said...

It's not just immoral, if we're going to go that route, it's *tacky.*

17 Aug 2004 | john said...

We are talking about Bestbuy and Walmart here. They don't factor in customers' morals in their business models, nor do they depend on them. Most companies don't even factor in their own organizational morals when they make decisions. To them, what is allowed (or legal) is morally good enough. Decisions are made for the good of the bottom line and shareholder, and for good reason. Their view of the world is narrow.
As for buying and returning, it's a business transaction, and by definition, you are 'supposed' to exploit every advantage you have. This is a sad truth of the business world.

If we are talking about stealing from a charity, hey, that's a totally different story.

17 Aug 2004 | John Bedard said...

Does every thread on this site boil down to an intractable debate between moral relativists (x types are bad so why shouldn't we screw them when ever is possible regardless of our own immorality at doing so) and the moral absolutists (y types are doing bad things and there are no excuses)?

I tend to fall in with the latter but that's just me. I'm kooky.

17 Aug 2004 | Unearthed Ruminator said...

Is it morally wrong to want to return a product you aren't satisfied witih? I wouldn't think so.

Is it wrong to "rent" products from retailers (i.e. pick up the camera, use it, and return it after the event is done with no real intention of purchasing the camera)? The ground here is a little less firm. You weren't dissatisfied with the product; it isn't defective.

People who "rent" fom retailers are taking advantage of the fact that most retailers sell products to people under good faith (that the product works, that the consumer wants the product, etc.). Retailers, understand that this happens, though. That is why most of them have a "restocking" fee for opened items.

If retailers had a demo program - where they had x number of that camera that you could try out, would you do that over doing the retail "rent"? That is how it used to work back in my retail days with tennis rackets - we had demo models for all of the high end rackets that people could "check out" - we would put the cost of a new racket on their card, and credit their card with they checked the racket back in (or just apply it to the purchase of a new racket). The program worked great.

17 Aug 2004 | Jose Rui Fernandes said...

Pat, I don't exactly endorse big corporations profiting from cheap labour, child labour, animal abuse... But two wrongs never give you one right. You can theorize about capitalism, but this is a just matter of right and wrong.
And I guess it happens all the time. Once, when visiting the US, I bought a backpack and when I arrived home, I noticed several school items (pens, erasers and so on) in one pocket, like it was used before by someone. My first reaction was "these guys sold me an used item".
Bill Brown, what's to understand about your co-worker? He's an open book.
And after Ben's post, this is already like the Graffiti post. I think you missed more than one childhood lesson. Answering your question, I never try to get something free when I can. Period.
The problem is to live in a free and broad tolerant society, full of people that just don't deserve it.

17 Aug 2004 | pb said...

Brad: "maybe there's a market niche for someone to offer this stuff for short-term rental."

Moogul

In the case of cameras, tho, it's called a "disposable".

17 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

There's also RAC (Rent-A-Center):

http://www.rentacenter.com/

But they've had a few 'moral' issues as well:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=rent+a+center+lawsuit&spell=1

17 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Personally, I think the solution is more communal-type sharing of material items.

I can't understand why everyone on my block has to own their own lawnmowers, for instance. Why not a block, communal toolshed with ONE lawnmower?

17 Aug 2004 | BradNelson said...

My cousin did this with Best Buy because he wanted a $2000 HDTV for the weekend. I can't believe they didn't have a restocking fee for that (I'm not sure if they did). I'll agree, it's pretty lame to pull this type of thing off.

17 Aug 2004 | John Y. said...

Most big cities have camera rentals available. Here in DC, Penn Camera does it. They even will credit most of the rental fee towards a purchase if you're trying out a lens, camera body, etc.

I imagine you need a pretty large and/or pretty specialized population to make this profitable, though.

17 Aug 2004 | kingbenny said...

I think Best Buy has a percentage-based restocking fee, so for a $2000 HDTV, that could be expensive rental.....

17 Aug 2004 | JF said...

I can't understand why everyone on my block has to own their own lawnmowers, for instance. Why not a block, communal toolshed with ONE lawnmower?

Well, who's stopping you from starting this? Do you donate your mower to your friends or are you still waiting for other people to make the first move? Take action if this is what you believe.

17 Aug 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

Personally, I think the solution is more communal-type sharing of material items.

I've had some experience with this, and it can be tricky. You often get one person who monopolizes the equipment or fails to take proper care of it. It can work pretty well among friends and close neighbors, but often falls apart in a larger community.

When I lived in Vermont, my neighbors and I frequently shared tools and other equipment, and I thought about setting up an internet-based inventory system so people knew what equipment everyone had and whether it was available. Mostly we shared the big, rarely used items, like rototillers or my landlord's cider press (we would have a pressing weekend each autumn, everyone brought their own apples). For smaller items that were used frequently, like chain saws or lawnmowers, it usually was more convenient to own one yourself than to try to schedule a time when nobody else needed it.

17 Aug 2004 | but that's just me said...

It's personally very disheartening and sad to read the comments of those who say that since the big corporations rip other people off, we should rip them off in return. That is a completely immoral stance right there.

It may be a cliche, but Jose is right...two wrongs do not make a right. If you think what someone is doing is wrong and you do the same thing to them or to someone else, you are a hypocrite, clear and simple. Are you helping to stop the immorality of that person (or corporation) or are you just adding to the problem?

17 Aug 2004 | Chris said...

Everybody seems to be ignoring the fact that Best Buy, WalMart, etc are very aware that this goes on, and thus have already priced the cost of the returns into the product. They aren't out anything from this behavior. What it does is raise the price for everybody else.

What would make more sense is variable pricing based on the level of service. If you want a 30 day no questions asked return policy, you pay 10% more than the guy that is willing to live with the manufacturers defective product policy. They are already trying to sell us extended warranties on just about everything, this can't be that hard to implement. It's very likely that Best Buy and WalMart are better off offering easy returns and passing the cost on to everybody.

17 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Debating morals in the context mega-retail-corporations is fun, isn't it?

17 Aug 2004 | Jason said...

Keep in mind there are worse abuses of "the system". One that springs to mind (not to give anyone ideas), is buying an item with a large rebate, sending away for said rebate, then returning the item. In theory (assuming said retailer does not catch the coincidence), the store actually pays you to borrow the item temporarily, regardless if it's opened or not.

That actually hurts the store's immediate bottom line more than "renting" the item, but in the long run it probably comes close to evening out, due to the fact they must sell the "rented" item at a drastically discounted rate (equal to the rebate possibly).

17 Aug 2004 | Dave Woodward said...

I thought I remember reading somewhere of an independant film making the rounds that applies psychological tests to corporate entities (the thinking being that corporate entities are legally recognized as citizens). They found out that most corporate entities are completely psychotic. No regard for anyone else's safety or well being, their only motivation being self gain. This of course is a stereotypical view. Just thought I'd add some fuel to the fire :)

17 Aug 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

No regard for anyone else's safety or well being, their only motivation being self gain.

And yet when you look at corporate philanthropy, you start to realize that corporations have probably done more (in terms of tangible, lasting achievements) to protect the environment than Greenpeace has, to give just one example. Look at all the land that the Nature Conservancy has preserved with corporate support. I think most nonprofits who decide to work with corporations end up being able to do a lot more good in the world than those who view corporations as the enemy and refuse to accept their support.

Sure, some corporations use their philanthropy as an excuse for greenwashing. So what? They've done something great with their money, let them take credit for it. It steams me when people regard big corporations as uniformly evil and greedy, in a way it's equivalent to racism. Yes, there are some corporations who do terrible things or who have their heads stuck in the stone age. I don't shop at WalMart and I don't buy gas from Exxon-Mobil. Ever. But I don't think those companies themselves are necessarily evil; in fact I know they've done some good things too.

17 Aug 2004 | Benjy said...

I think the 15% restocking fee is precisely because of people who do things like that. That's why it's typically charged on laptops, cameras, camcorders, portable music players, etc.

17 Aug 2004 | monkeyinabox said...

Too bad you can't do that with beer. Hmmm, now that you think about it.....

17 Aug 2004 | Chris said...

I would argue none us ever buys beer - we always rent it :)

17 Aug 2004 | MrBlank said...

The film was called: The Corporation

It was interesting and informative, but completely one sided. Basically, it sums it up as this: corporations = evil. It wore me out.

17 Aug 2004 | indi said...

I'm not saying it's OK, but I agree it's already figured into the bottom line or compensated for with restocking fees. Retailers have long experience having to compensate for the moral failings of consumers and even their own employees with regards to shoplifting. This is another form of stealing by consumers, it just happens to be legal.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned - how many times can a person get away with this at the same store or chain of stores? You'd think that with all of the networked databases out there a chain can track individuals who make this a practice and refuse to sell to them. If they aren't doing this they should.

17 Aug 2004 | Michael Spina said...

How do you draw the line between Mom & Pop and Walmart? The guy that owns my local hardware store has no obligation to do any more than take my money, give me a product, and put the cash in his bank. Is Walmart any different, i.e. why is it okay to take advantage of them and not the local guy? I bet it's because you have to look the local guy in the face, but no one at Walmart will remember you.

If you're going to take advantage of a return policy, at least be consistent.

17 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Is Walmart any different, i.e. why is it okay to take advantage of them and not the local guy?

I'm not say it is or isn't, but these silly black/white debates are just silly. It's a big world with LOTS of grey area out there.

I bet it's because you have to look the local guy in the face, but no one at Walmart will remember you.

Maybe it's because the local guy is integral to the local economy, while Wal-Mart often can assist in destroying the local economy.

Or maybe it's because the local actually lives in the community and the Walton's probably will never even visit said community.

Maybe it's because the local hardware guy actually knows the type of screw you are looking for while the staff at Home Depot can't tell a nail from a screw.

Maybe it's because the local restuarant is buying locally produced food while the chain store imports from 3 states over.

Maybe it's because the local guy knows you, and actually cares about your customer experience.

Or, like you said, maybe it's because you look the local guy in the face. I find that a very valid reason as to why folks may respect local business more so than giant multi-national ones.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the return policy debate, but I can see logical reasons as to why people, in general, have more respect for local business than facless mult-national ones.

17 Aug 2004 | karl said...

Carlos said: NO! They don't. Jesus! How does a retailer "deserve" this when they are trying to accomodate customers who do the right thing. How do you come to this conclusion?

I didn't mean "deserve" in some sort of vigilante retribution sense, I meant in the sense that they have set the terms of the sale, and if the terms of the sale say "you can take this item and give it back to us and be out no money at all", then they should expect people to act in accordance with those terms.

I don't think it's a question of morality at all. If the policy said that you could return it "provided you were dissatisfied" or "if the product was broken", or with some other provision other than your general unwillingness to continue having paid for it -- and then you lied to them to return it -- then it would become a question of morality. As it stands now, it's a question of writing a poor contract and agreeing to less than optimal terms of sale.

Of course, as has been pointed out, they have most likely factored the possibility of theft/fraud into their prices, so they've actually taken the step of presuming their customers/employees are criminals and/or morally bankrupt, understood that they need to compensate for this fact, and changed their returns policy so that it will attract more "good" customers to their business and at the same time charged the "good" customers extra for the thieves amongst us.

17 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

Who doesn't try to get something for free when they can. It's not stealing from them, its outsmarting them. And if they leave policies in place that make it that easy for me to use a camera for as long as I need it and then return it for a full refund, I'm a frieken MORON IF I DON'T RETURN IT!

Ben, You're right. YOU ARE A MORON.

Carlos = 37sig's new moral higher ground?

Darrel, maybe we should count on you for this?

If we are talking about stealing from a charity, hey, that's a totally different story.

John, Stealing is stealing. That IS the point.

Is it morally wrong to want to return a product you aren't satisfied witih? I wouldn't think so.

UR, this is obviousy OK, but as I'm sure you read in my opening statement, that is not what I was talking about here.

17 Aug 2004 | One of several Steves said...

One thing I haven't seen mentioned - how many times can a person get away with this at the same store or chain of stores? You'd think that with all of the networked databases out there a chain can track individuals who make this a practice and refuse to sell to them. If they aren't doing this they should.

I wish I could find the article, but it's not coming up on searches of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week, the two places I thought it was most likely I read it. But, the gist was that companies are quietly starting to do just that, including Best Buy. They don't do it often, and for understandable reasons they do it very quietly, but they do occasionlly blacklist certain customers, figuring that they cost the business much more than they're ever going to get out of them in revenue, or what they're going to lose when this person tells their family and friends that Best Buy banned them.

And I can't say I blame them.

17 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Darrel, maybe we should count on you for this?

If 37sig wants to give me a pulpit for me to declare what is wrong and right with the planet...well...er...no, they probably WOULDN'T want that. ;o)

John, Stealing is stealing. That IS the point.

'x is x' is rarely ever that simplisticly true.

17 Aug 2004 | JohnnieC said...

It is stunning when you realize how many people behave without common decency. At least some are brave enough to defend their schemes. Of course many more keep silent about these things.

17 Aug 2004 | Adolph Hitler said...

This is just like the Nazis.

17 Aug 2004 | Bill Brown said...

One of several Steves: here's that Best Buy article you were talking about.

17 Aug 2004 | Bill Brown said...

My favorite part of all this is the people crowing about how Wal-Mart et al probably factor this into their bottom lines and expect people to do this. Isn't that considerate of you to anticipate Wal-Mart's will and dutifully fulfill its expectations?

I bet you couldn't even start to comprehend how Wal-Mart operates, yet you're second-guessing their business policies. It reminds me of that Seinfeld where Kramer says that the post office will write off the cost of replacing a broken stereo sent insured. Jerry asks if he even knows what a write off is but Kramer doesn't. Well, it's a lot funnier to hear it.

17 Aug 2004 | Rachel said...

They don't do it often, and for understandable reasons they do it very quietly, but they do occasionlly blacklist certain customers, ...

One of my first jobs was working at Staples, and there was one guy who would always come in and buy misc. electronics (scanners, printers, fax machines, etc etc), only to return it a few days later. It wasn't long before whenever he came in, every employee in the store would be mysteriously busy, or we'd be out of stock on the particular item he wanted, or whatever... anything to avoid selling to this guy. It wasted our time selling him the product, it wasted our time repackaging it when he returned it, and it cost us money when we either had to sell it open box/clearance or send it back to the manufacturer.

So aggrivating. Even if Staples is an evil corporation or whatever you chose to think of big business, the store manager and assistant managers were good people just trying to make a decent living, and crap like that effects their compensation if it happens enough.

17 Aug 2004 | f5 said...

Jeeeezus. This place is really starting to feel like Metafilter way too much lately.

17 Aug 2004 | Eby said...

I used to work at Wally World and had enough managerial duties that I had to "ok" some of the returns. The people using stuff for a day or two and then returning it didn't really bother me since it was difficult to tell that apart from the normal returns. Some things went straight back on the shelf (if packaging was alright and product still worked). Other stuff was sometimes returned to the vendor for credit if possible. Also, many times the only thing the customer can get is store credit which is one way of protecting the bottom line.

What really bothers me are the people that try to return their old items in place of the new ones. I had many cases where someone would return their old TV set in the box their new one came in. I'm sorry but I won't believe an old beat up 17" TV came in the 21" box. And returning a first generation playstation that hasn't been sold in the store for years in a plain box where you magic markered the logo on isn't going to fly with me either. Luckily I quit before I lost all hope in humanity.

18 Aug 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Jeeeezus. This place is really starting to feel like Metafilter way too much lately."

Rarely do you see the SVN crowd getting *this* worked up over, say, human rights in the 'liberal' sense - especially humans outside the US (or, in Bill Brown's case, Native Americans - sorry to hark back to a *very* old point, Bill!)

But if they perceive a threat to the sovereign consumer, or property owner, or business...boy, watch out!

18 Aug 2004 | Jake said...

This is a strange debate to see on SVN, Carlos seems to enjoy stirring some emotion in his posts :)

Carlos, do you think it's wrong to intentionally "demo" a product by utilizing the return policy? For example, you really want a new TV but want to actually try it out for a while. So you buy it and if you don't like it intend to return it. But if you do like it, you'll keep it.

18 Aug 2004 | Scott said...

Jake, "demo-ing" (as you are calling it) is a VERY different thing than buying something "temporarily." A "demoed" return falls under the "dissatisfied" category. That is what these fairly liberal return policies are intended for...to make sure the buyer is happy. I have bought several things that I wasn't sure I would like, so I bought them from the company with the easiest return policy. Incidently, more often than not, I have kept the item...and sometimes I may never have bought the item if I didn't have a return "safety net" in the first place. Still, this is a far cry from a planned buy-use-return. Completely. One is what a return policy is created for...the other is not.

18 Aug 2004 | Drew said...

It's not illegal.

It is a moral/ethical issue.

Personally, I think it's kind of silly to "screw" a potentially unsavory company by doing things like that. (It's just an excuse to do what you would do anyway, people don't ACTUALLY actively try to screw companies by buying, using and returning stuff. It's a colossal waste of your time.)

If there's a company that has bad policies, or you don't like they way they treat you - don't shop there.
(And it doesn't take any time or effort at all!)

Unfortunately, I think most of the time when people do things like this - the people that 'pay' for it literally or figuratively (as in extra work, or extra-annoying work like repackaging returned items) are the people that work at the stores.
So instead of hurting The Corporation, you end up hurting/annoying your neighbors.

So, uh, good job. Keep it up.
Dorks.

18 Aug 2004 | indi said...

I think it's easier to get worked up over an issue we all have some familiarity with such as this one. Compare the response to this post vs. "Still Not Getting It" about sneaky marketing techniques used by the record companies. Fortunately the people making the main blog posts here have broad interests and aren't just going for the wild discussion thread (most of the time :-)

18 Aug 2004 | David Bailey said...

There is a simple solution to this problem. In the UK a retailer must give a refund on any product which breaks within 1 year of it being sold (I guess there is a similar law in the US). If a customer buys a 365 colour TV and then returns it 7 days later saying it doesn't fit into his TV cabinet, the retailer says to him, the product is not broken and you have, in effect, rented this product for 7 days... Therefore, you will have to pay the 7/365 ths of the total purchase price for the TV... 7. If the customer has not got all of the origional packaging and manuals, he is also charged for the repackaging of the TV (lets say 10% of its value) giving a grand total of 43.

When the TV is sold the next time, the retailer takes the rental + repackaging costs off the purchace price, giving them 322.

Of course, if the TV is broken the customer gets a full refund and the retailer gets the value of the TV back from the manufacturer or supplier.

Any thoughts?

18 Aug 2004 | Jeremy said...

In Germany, where I live, stores are more strict on the return policy. You typically can't return stuff and get your money back. At most, you can get store credit. But people do this sort of thing mentioned in the post with cars. People test drive cars (sometimes for the weekend) and return them to the dealer. To combat this the dealers are going to start charging for test drives.

18 Aug 2004 | F2 said...

I'm late to this party since I just read this today but I've heard this being done with

1) Video cameras for either xmas or new years
2) Large screen tvs for the superbowl
3) Prom dresses

18 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

I don't think it's a question of morality at all. If the policy said that you could return it "provided you were dissatisfied" or "if the product was broken", or with some other provision other than your general unwillingness to continue having paid for it -- and then you lied to them to return it -- then it would become a question of morality. As it stands now, it's a question of writing a poor contract and agreeing to less than optimal terms of sale.

It IS NOT a question of "writing a poor contract"! It is abuse. That hurts even you when you have to pay higher prices because some ass wants to "borrow" a camera for a weekend wedding. This has nothing to do with returning it because "you were dissatisfied" or "if the product was broken".

18 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

This is a strange debate to see on SVN, Carlos seems to enjoy stirring some emotion in his posts :)

Are you for real?

Carlos, do you think it's wrong to intentionally "demo" a product by utilizing the return policy? For example, you really want a new TV but want to actually try it out for a while. So you buy it and if you don't like it intend to return it. But if you do like it, you'll keep it.

That IS NOT what I was talking about. Christ!, But to answer your question, I personally would not do that. Instead, I would spend some time doing research and compare features.

18 Aug 2004 | Richard said...

This topic is terrific. The comment thread is amazing to read (and sad in many ways for me).

So, I'm thinking of getting a D SLR. I'm thinking Canon 300D, Nikon D70, or mabe Canon 10 (or 20) D.

1. I buy all three from B and H (New York), try them all out at home and return the two I don't want within the return time frame. This is possible but I find fault with my initial motivation and sense of entitlement in doing it this way. This is the above-mentioned "demo" scenario and I'm knowingly taking advantage of it.

2. Go down to B and H, 3 CF cards in pocket, stand in line and then, with the help of a sales person, load up my CS cards and shoot with and ask questions about all three cameras until they drag me out of the store. I take my CF cards home, load the pictures onto my computer and check them all out. I decide then that the 10 (20?) D is my ax so I get on the B and H site and order one up.

I get it and in a week I feel like I've made a mistake, box it up and return it. I then go back to New York and repeat the process with the D70 and 300D.

I go home and buy a 300D on their web site. I get it and use it and decide I like it.

The difference between these scenarios is my intentions and whether B and H ever catches wind of my intentions is less important than the fact that I have to live with myself.

I find it amazing that people can do this, rationalizing their intentions with the fact that corporations are the enemy, and even more amazing that they can brag about it to friends, thinking it makes them look smarter or shrewder than the next guy.

The human brain is a most amazing rationalization machine. Couple that with a "professional victim's" outlook on life and you have the situation that started this great thread.

We live in New England and make a yearly trip to LL Bean, the company that used to have the best return policy on the planet. They changed their policy in response to too many people taking advantage of them. They used to eat the fringe stuff, no questions asked, but after a while it caught up with them.

18 Aug 2004 | John Y. said...

(except that B&H probably lets trusted customers borrow cameras for a while to try them out, with a deposit. At least, the photo stores I use down here do... but I get your point.)

18 Aug 2004 | pessoa said...

Instead of being a moral relativist or absolutist, I fear I am a moral literalist. If a retailer says, "You can return this for any reason," I see no justification for the disapprobation of buy-and-returners. Also, it doesn't seem useful to me to talk about the motives of corporations, i.e., "they expect people to operate in good faith." Corporations aren't rubes, and you can't hurt their feelings. For me, the best argument against buy-and-return is aesthetic, not moral: it is tacky. A 10% restocking try-and-buy charge seems the best model for all concerned.

18 Aug 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

There's a similar unfortunate practice that goes on in the world of wooden simple-system (6-hole) flutes. These are mostly custom-made instruments, and the 10 or so finest makers in the world have long waiting lists (I just received a flute that I ordered from a maker 6 years ago). A growing number of people have decided that it's okay to place orders with several or all of these makers, and then after the flutes arrive they get to decide which one(s) they want to keep and sell the rest, usually at a higher price than what they paid for them.

I suppose there's nothing wrong with that in principle, except that it's selfish. The problem is that it extends the waiting lists for everyone else. If you're a player who wants a flute in a particular kind of wood or a particular key configuration, you end up having to wait even longer while the flute maker gets all of these speculative orders out of the way. Or you can take your chances and hope that something shows up on eBay. I've heard that some of the young virtuoso flute players in Ireland are having trouble obtaining good instruments because so many rich Americans are putting their names on every flute maker's waiting list.

18 Aug 2004 | Andy said...

This is pretty amusing. What really burns me up is people who drive in the fast lane on the highway and refuse to get out of the way, forcing you to pass them on the right. So, they've forced YOU to break the law (not that they've forced you, but you know what I mean), and they're only failing to observe a common courtesy. Usually, it's some tosser in an SUV. I wonder if they also return used merchandise.

Surprised that no one's mentioned prisoner's dilemma.

18 Aug 2004 | One of several Steves said...

One thing amazes me here regarding the explanations justifying the practice of buying something with the intent of returning it after using it for the weekend or whatever.

You're only hurting yourself.

Yes, companies "factor that in." They don't factor it in by cutting back on their profit. They factor it in by raising *all* prices whatever percentage they need to cover the losses they incur from that, just as they raise all prices to cover losses from theft. (And, really, buying something with the intent to use it and then return it is de facto theft, in my opinion.) So, when you do decide to buy something that you're going to keep, you're paying more for it because of the costs that need to be recovered because of your earlier "borrowing" habits.

And the fact that such behavior is legal doesn't make it justifiable. There are lots of things that are legal that are not ethical. There's a huge difference between buying something and then returning it because you realize it wasn't what you expected or you're not satisfied with its performance, and going into the store intending to just "borrow" the item and return it after you've used it a little bit.

18 Aug 2004 | f5 said...

Good f-ing god, people have stopped actually reading the thread and are just saying the same shit over and over. Time to pull the plug.

18 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

I really hate it when you have only a little bit of cereal left in the box. It's not enough for a full bowl, but it's not so little that you want to throw it away. So then I usually mix it with some other cereal. But then i have two different cereals in the same bowl. Invariablly, one of them has a shorter 'maximum sogginess' quotient than the other and that just never works out.

That really burns me.

18 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Smart Start, Honey Nut Cheerios. Love 'em both.

18 Aug 2004 | Andy said...

I really hate it when you have only a little bit of cereal left in the box. It's not enough for a full bowl, but it's not so little that you want to throw it away.

Is it immoral to throw it away?

18 Aug 2004 | said...

Good f-ing god, people have stopped actually reading the thread and are just saying the same shit over and over. Time to pull the plug.

that' the beauty of blogging though...

18 Aug 2004 | Hagbard Celine said...

Well, I'll tell you what I think...

But first, the whores!

19 Aug 2004 | Jake said...

Are you for real?

Yea, i'm serious.

19 Aug 2004 | Grow Up said...

"Idiot," "moron," etc. The name-calling in this thread really makes me question the professionalism of the posters.

Just because you don't agree with someone else's opinions doesn't mean you have to call them names.

Hopefully you are just having a bad day.

19 Aug 2004 | but that's just me said...

What burns me...what really chaps my hide...is when I've already poured the bowl of cereal and open the refrigerator only to find, much to my chagrin, that I'm out of milk. Curse those cows for not producing enough! (I jest, of course. Alas, I have only myself to blame. Hmm...blaming oneself...how un-American.)

19 Aug 2004 | Britt said...

But but that's just me said, have you ever considered the stress the cows go through to produce your milk? Wouldn't it be better to buy soy milk and let the cows relax for a while? Or maybe you could fill the milk container up with water and return it to the store, saying it went bad. Then you get FREE MILK!

19 Aug 2004 | said...

that I'm out of milk

Oh...don't get me started on that one. There's often been a bowl of cereal left on the counter all day waiting for me to get some milk on the way home.

On the plus side, dinner is ready!

Wouldn't it be better to buy soy milk

It would be if soy milk had any taste. ;o)

let the cows relax for a while

The catch is, there's not much use in a non-producing dairy cow. Cattle are highly inefficient animals in terms of product in, and product we get then get out of them. So, a non-producing dairy cow is dead weight and is usually turned into hamburger instead.

FYI, a stressed cow isn't good for the farmer either. Good farmers do whatever they can to give their dairy cows a decent life. Granted, a lot of milk these days come from corporate farms where the consideration of the animal's welfare isn't nearly as high.

Or maybe you could fill the milk container up with water and return it to the store, saying it went bad.

Ha! ;o)

19 Aug 2004 | but that's just me said...

So I either cause a rash of overly stressed cows by demanding they produce more milk or I go through the personal stress of not having milk for my cereal. In one case, a bunch of cows end up between sesame seed buns. In the other, I end up with no breakfast. What a moral dilemma.

How dare you sassenfrass expletive $#%#@ expletives put me in this position with your #$%@! lectures!! It's just MILK, people!!

19 Aug 2004 | but that's just me said...

Wouldn't it be better to buy soy milk

Hey, soy has feelings, too. *Er...um*

21 Aug 2004 | Brendan Taylor said...

If a company has a return policy that allows you to take advantage of it, then they've consented to your taking advantage. Where's the moral issue?

25 Aug 2004 | Robert said...

Illegal?

Possibly in several jurisdictions, though it'd take an anally retentive prosecutor. In Australia, at least, there is the crime of "Dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception"

26 Aug 2004 | Eric said...

eh, it's ok, they're probably blogging on company time. Its not really "stealing" right guys?

Screw the morals, you'll drive yourself bonkers on trying to change people. Break it down to business. New = $500, after returned, it has to sell at a markdown because it was used (that is if it had much a markup to begin with)

Got a beef with mega-stores? Then then stop trying to "show them" by dinking them for $15 dollars and shopping at the mom and pops.

The mega corp discussion is a multi-faceted issue that no has no one easy answer, but THATS always the common thread on these posts. Why don't we break down the problem and discuss the points -- because that would be too much work. This crap is as bad as watching CNN, fluff circle talk that at the end of day changed nothing and just wasted another half-hour of my time.

30 Jan 2005 | compatelius said...

bocigalingus must be something funny.