Comments on: Taking Advantage – or Over-Advantage – of Customer Service

By: Jill

Jill — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:33:03 +0000

Restoration Hardware, who also does the ‘satisfaction always guaranteed’ promise, definitely sends good condition returns to their outlet stores. Once there, they price things usually slightly over their wholesale, put up a couple of signs proclaiming all sales from there are final, and people like me replace most of the lighting fixtures in their house for less than what it would cost for something of far worse quality from Lowe’s or Home Depot.

As for the enameled pots mentioned up thread, unless you need it like right this minute, the ‘correct’ answer is to either order from the Le Creuset outlet center directly when they’re having one of their annual clearance sales (they’ll reportedly take orders by phone if you know what you want) or keep an eye out at your local T.J. Maxx or Tuesday Morning until you score the $300 pot for something in the $150-$165 range.

By: J

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:07:06 +0000

“If you’re not satisfied with any item, simply return it to us at any time for an exchange or refund of its purchase price.”

I don’t know why there is an ethical dilemma here. The policy is pretty darn clear. They sell a product and stand behind it.

I got a pair of boots from LL Bean (which has a similar guarantee) that I wore for two months in the snow and the slush. Something went wrong with them and I returned them. I didn’t feel any guilt about it, I had paid $100 for a pair of boots rather than $30 for cheap knockoffs and they should have lasted years. I also buy Craftsman hand tools, and have used their unconditional guarantee, too, with similar results — you walk in with a broken tool, you walk out with a replacement.

Another thing that getting these types of returns do is let the retailer/manufacturer improve their product. There’s nothing like the actual thing for an engineering team to be able to analyze and improve the product line.

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:54:39 +0000

Jen, then you must find Wal-Mart unethical if you think competition with liberal return policies is unethical. If that’s not okay, there’s no way you can condone Wal-Mart moving into a town, finding out exactly what items every little store carries, start selling themselves and drastically undercutting everyone in town until every competitor is closed. And then once they are closed, they start to carry less of a selection and jacking the prices back up on what they do. Take what you can, however you can.

By: Jen

Jen — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:57:33 +0000

If you have to ask whether it’s ethical, you might as well admit that you’ve already decided it’s unethical.

(I’m all for good customer service, but I have to say, I think that such a liberal return policy is screwing over other retailers who will have to fight with spoiled customers to uphold their own, more standard policies.)

By: Leah

Leah — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:02:44 +0000

Alexandra, do you also not buy clothes from stores that let people try them on?

I agree with friend — I’m pretty sure returns get sold at outlet stores and the like.

By: friend

friend — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:03:28 +0000

@Alexandra,
I’m surmising Lands’ End sells returned stuff in outlet stores for dirt cheap. A few years ago I got a winter parka for $7. It had the LE label cut out but was recognizable. I don’t think you’d get returned merchandise thru the general catalog.

By: Alexandra

Alexandra — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:54:16 +0000

I’ll never EVER shop at Lands’ End now, knowing that the “new” sweater I just bought may have been worn several times by a stranger and then returned.

Disgusting.

I would rather shop somewhere with a stricter return policy that protects ME from greasy returners like that.

By: Des

Des — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:57:04 +0000

Why should Lands’ End get the benefit of their Unconditional Guarantee (in the form of great marketing, loyal customers, etc.) but not pay the cost in honoring it? They offer it because it is a win-win for them and their customer. Returning the sweater because she doesn’t like it is ABSOLUTELY within the spirit of their guarantee.

By: Perry

Perry — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:15:14 +0000

This comment would have been a better fit for Trent’s earlier ethics post, but here goes. I remember a Sears commercial from (I think) the 1980′s. In the commercial, an older guy has a Craftsman hammer that he’s had and used for decades. The hammer finally breaks and he takes it back to Sears, somewhat skeptical that they’ll honor the lifetime warrenty. To his amazement, they cheerfully give him a brand new hammer in exchange for the old hammer. So Sears, or at least it did back then, encourages people to make use of their lifetime warranty, no matter how long it has been and the use gotten out of the product.

By: David/Yourfinances101

David/Yourfinances101 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:04:50 +0000

I find it hard enough to get people out there in the customer service world to honor their agreements rather than worrying about over-stepping my bounds.

However, if something involves anything dishonest, or misreprpesenting something, then I usually shy away, If it is within the guidelines of their return policy, then I take advantage of it.

After all, it is “their” return policy.

By: Susan

Susan — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:38:06 +0000

While I think Trent wrote a similar although not identical post, the comments followed the same path.

As for Henry, thank you for the early morning entertainment. I read your replies to my husband. By the way, does your family theme song involve duelling bangos?

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:37:12 +0000

“if Cam had worn the sweater for years and years and it was showing wear and tear from tons of use, I wouldn’t think it was cool to return the sweater at that point.”

Huh? Why not? Isn’t that the point of an “unconditional guarantee?” They’re guaranteeing that the product will last you the rest of your life, under normal use. If, through normal use, the sweater starts to show wear, then it was shoddily made, which is exactly what such a “guarantee” is supposed to protect you against.

I would think that returning a badly-worn sweater after years of use would be MORE ethical than the original question, of returning it after only a couple of uses because you changed your mind and don’t like it anymore. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the intention behind Lands’ End “unconditional guarantee?”

By: Beth

Beth — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:29:04 +0000

Cam is stealing and is the reason honest people have to pay MORE for thier purchases to make up for the product dishonest people steal. The guarentee is for the quality of the item, NOT to cover the everchanging whims of a young woman with a greedy heart. The sweater is FINE, so returning it is dishonest and stealing since it can’t be resold to another customer since it’s been worn. The company loses money over a girl’s whims who won’t accept financial responsibility for the obligations she made. She promised to pay $29.99 for a quality sweater. Lands End honored thier side of the bargain: Cam did not. I END UP PAYING FOR HER DISHONESTY.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:11:41 +0000

You already wrote this post.

You got a gift, you should have tried it on and realized you didn’t like it right away.
You didn’t, too bad for you.

NOT Land’s End’s fault. Donate it and move on.

By: Henry

Henry — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:43:19 +0000

I wouldn’t have had to blame the employee or the next customer if Wal-Mart hadn’t ran the nice little Mom and Pop shop that sold quality items that would last for years and years out of business. I don’t care if you’re on disability or making six figures a year, I wouldn’t blame anyone for creative shopping at the Wal-Mart.
I’m not setting anyone up. It’s just unfortunate collateral damage that may or may not occur.
At least I don’t shoplift. Actually walking out of the store with something, just like that, concealing it? No, that will get you caught. But congrats to those ballsy/lucky enough to make it like that. But the odds are not good, so I don’t play them. As long as you can get the employees to hand the items to you and smile as they hand you your freebie, you’re doing the right thing. Cameras pick up actions such as you stuffing a watch in your pocket, sometimes alarms go off. But when you get the merchandise out of the store with your plausible explanations, all is well. Good old plausible deniability.

By: Mardi

Mardi — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:39:28 +0000

Remember, this sweater was a GIFT–she didn’t buy it for herself. I think the ethically responsible thing to do would be to take it to a consignment shop, where it can find a new home and she can receive a little cash to put toward buying a sweater she likes better. Alternatively, she should donate it to Goodwill or a similar place, where, again, it can find a better home. It just seems dishonest to return it after it has been worn when there is nothing wrong with it.

By: Lenore

Lenore — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:32:40 +0000

Henry, please don’t give the rest of us on Social Security Disability a bad name. I bring in less than half the income I did when working, and I’m not above doing a little retail sleight of hand to make it last. But there’s a difference between returning a product that broke through no fault of your own versus blaming employees for improperly wrapping glass that broke or returning something used for ages in a sealed box so the next customer will be blamed for its condition.
Karma’s gonna get you, buddy, if you keep setting other people up and blatantly breaking the law. Maybe your disability is mental (mine is–bipolar disorder) and you truly don’t see the harm or repercussions of what you’re doing. Hopefully you’re just posting outlandish scenarios to see how people react. Since you were so candid, I will be too. I thought about shoplifting a watch last week but didn’t do it. I haven’t stolen anything in years, but once in awhile something shiny and too expensive will tempt me. There, I feel better and hopefully won’t get the urge again for years to come.

By: Henry

Henry — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:07:31 +0000

Oh, Kara, I suppose you would be one of those people that call Wal-Mart ethical and moral. What about how they thieve the lifeblood and economy from every downtown in America? Rape children for slave labor all over Asia and other parts of the world? Wal-Mart deserves it, my shopping tactics there only reflect the examples they have set for me.

By: Jules

Jules — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:37:48 +0000

@ Leah:

See if you can’t get them resoled. It might not be as good a job as the originals, but you’ll probably get another year or two out of the uppers. Assuming, of course, that you don’t have any odd orthopedic issues.

As for the rest here: I actually completely disagree with returning the sweater at all. I wouldn’t have a problem re-gifting it (after washing), or saving it for a day when the thermostat breaks down, or donating it. But this was a gift, and the policy is not for the recipient to take advantage of. Besides, she’d already worn it *twice*. If it were truly that odious she wouldn’t have worn it again after trying it on.

By: Kara

Kara — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:51 +0000

Henry, that’s not frugal, that’s theft.