Hacker News Reader

Comment by ben509 | Hacker News Reader

I'm more surprised to see that clothing retailers weren't listed. It's incredibly common for "customers" to buy clothes and return them the next day.

View on HN

Working at an on-line shoes, apparel, and accessories retailer, my understanding is that there are four categories of people regularly returning items:

* Stylists - they buy for a client (celebrities, wealthy people) and send back things that don't look appropriate

* Entertainment - TV and movies regularly buy a lot of clothes and return most of them

* Renters - people who may spend tens of thousands of dollars per year but only have $2,000 in lifetime sales -- everything else is returned

* Legitimate customers - they might buy two or three of the same item to find the one that fits

There are things we do to help with the last case and to help people figure out what will fit before they purchase the item, and those have been proven to work. Stylists and Entertainment buyers are tolerated. Renters get picked out with data analysis, but the queries tend to be expensive in time and resources and require human discretion, something missing in the Best Buy story.

Would it make sense to have retailers that cater to these heavy returners? Charge them a subscription and give them a monthly box they can return items in, allow partial refunds with a well described contract, and generally work with their use cases?

There are already services that do this. I've seen ads for a shoe service (name escapes me) and a clothing service (Gwynnie Bee).

Zappos (owned by Amazon) has unlimited returns for a year. It makes shopping for shoes really convenient — you can order multiple sizes, styles, etc and just send back the ones you don’t want to keep.

The downside is that you buy them all and get a refund on return.

I think I first saw one of those nearly a decade ago: it was definitely high-end, catering to men, and all designer labels. I honestly don't know if it survived or failed because the category isn't interesting to me.

Returns are the problem: returns may not get the nice discounts for shipping, they require manual review of the products (are it the correct SKU, the correct size, is it in a resellable condition, etc.), restocking and reinsertion into buyable inventory, etc. And then refund processing, which may take 7-10 days or more.

But it doesn't address the problem of renters: they won't buy a subscription box if there's a monthly fee associated with it. They like being able to get new shoes, clothes, and accessories to wear once and then return for free. Identifying renters and either directly contacting them to change their behavior (this is high touch, but the company culture encourages this) or removing them as customers are the best solutions I've seen to date.

You mean Stitch Fix?

Renters - people who may spend tens of thousands of dollars per year but only have $2,000 in lifetime sales -- everything else is returned

Massive problem in jewellery - people "buy" an item, wear it to that dinner party to impress their friends, return it a day or two later saying "when I got it home I decided it didn't suit me"

Restocking fee should take care of that.

Then that pisses off the "legitimate" returners. It's a fine line.

Clothing retailers would never. Most women I know purchase parts of outfits nearly in bulk to try on at home with their full closets available to them and return whatever doesn't work. It's not worth upsetting an entire market over the few people who abuse the rules.

Formalwear is a bigger issue, but not many stores will give refunds for hemmed, tailored, or altered clothing returns, and you'd be defeating the purpose of having that type of outfit if you went out without them. It's been a few years since I bought a tux, but I think places like that probably have limited return and exchange policies.

Returned clothes are surely significantly easier to restock than opened high ticket electrical goods. The typical wholesale values involved are probably very different too.

Clothing is further complicated by the fact that not having time to try something on in store and returning it later is typically considered a pretty legitimate and widely practiced shopping pattern, and one that most clothing stores encourage, at least in my experience. I'd imagine red flagging this would materially impact sales overall in some places.

I do that mostly because the stores I go to for whatever reason either don't have their changing rooms open or don't have them at all. Besides, it's much easier to try something on at home the way I'd normally wear it than quickly putting it on in a store.

It's also not like returned clothes are of no value. I've seen plenty of stores put returns right back on the racks as if they're new.

That's fair. I've talked to some people working in retail who mentioned that some people abused the policy mercilessly.

No doubt, and thats why some places just put restocking fees around certain types of clothing (formalwear/around school events/ etc)

The OP almost certainly did not put scare quotes around "customer" to describe trying on clothes at home in edge cases where it's impossible or burdensome to try them on in store.

(There's also the common case of regular customers who are busy and want to try lots of clothes at the same time, and the clerk makes a sales quote so they can bring up whatever didn't work for them later.)

OP is almost certainly talking about "customers" who buy a piece of clothing specifically to wear to a particular event out in the elements (party/dinner/camping/etc.), then try to return that piece for full credit after the elements have visibly changed the wear/fit/look/smell/elasticity of said clothing.

You have nothing to explain if a shop lets you purchase clothing to try at home in controlled clean conditions and then return it if you feel it doesn't work for you.

If you also bring back non-defective clothing that is no longer in a condition to be sold for full price, you are a meanie.

Actually I'd go one further-- even if it's pristine condition, someone who buys the thing knowing full well they will return it later is also a meanie because of the opportunity cost to the retailer.

Yes, I have friends who do this a lot and I just find it so unethical. The stores don't exist to lend you clothes, like they're your older sister's closet. There are costs associated with rent, labor, etc.

What do you think the scam they're pulling off is? My mother used to do this. She'd buy a bunch of clothes during the day while I was at school and then return the ones I didn't like. Was she not a real customer?

I'm talking about the people who buy the clothes, wear them, and return them.

One problem, however, is that it is quite hard to reliably separate the "bought, brought home, tried on, did not fit (or other reason) like I thought, returned" actors from the "bought for 'event', wore to 'event' to impress, returned when 'event' was over" actors.

Both exhibit a similar pattern from the retailers viewpoint: purchase, a few days delay, return.

But you didn't wear the ones you didn't like, presumably. The scam is where you buy clothes for a special occasion, wear them, and then return them.

The scam described is called "wardrobing"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardrobing

>Wardrobing is a form of return fraud. It is the practice of purchasing an item, using it, and then returning it to the store for a refund.[1][2] It is most often done with expensive clothing - hence the name - but the practice is also common with tools, electronics, and even computers. To prevent this practice, some stores make certain items, such as wedding dresses or Christmas decorations unreturnable. Some observers classify wardrobing as a form of shoplifting.

Presumably your mom didn't make you wear the unwanted clothes for a few days before she returned them.

Wow that’s really entitled behavior. When you buy something, the intention is for you to own that item. It isn’t a trial period meant to facilitate an in-home shopping experience. It’s tacky to make it a habit of regularly returning things where the reason for the return could have been prevented.

It costs a lot of money to process returns for a retailer, and that cost is often written down. It’s meant to be an exception during the sales process (not a normal condition) and offered as a curtosey, not a defacto right.

> Wow that’s really entitled behavior. When you buy something, the intention is for you to own that item. It isn’t a trial period meant to facilitate an in-home shopping experience. It’s tacky to make it a habit of regularly returning things where the reason for the return could have been prevented.

Actually, quite a few of clothing retailers advertise with that.

Most famously Zalando ran constant TV ads everywhere here for a few months promoting the "buy, if you don't like it, send it back".

Yes, "100% Satisfaction Guaranteed" is a common marketing theme, and explicitly encourages the behavior parent commenter calls "not a defacto right"

Tell it to my wife...

> When you buy something, the intention is for you to own that item. It isn’t a trial period meant to facilitate an in-home shopping experience. It’s tacky to make it a habit of regularly returning things where the reason for the return could have been prevented.

I think your knowledge may be dated here. Most higher-end stores I've been to in the past 5 years absolutely encourage that behavior strongly with sales reps suggesting you do so. They love it when my girlfriend is out shopping and brings back a dozen shirt options for me to try on, and then immediately returns 9 of them (heck, some stores even offer free shipping on the items you decide against). The store just made a sale on 3 items they otherwise would not have.

They of course don't want folks actually wearing those things out for a "trial" period, but they know they must compete with on-line options that operate in this exact manner.

Trader Joe's does this with food. In my experience, they will take anything back, any time, with no receipt. (Alcohol being the one exception, although they did take a return of an unopened box wine that was leaking.)

A few times I've been in the store and overheard a conversation a customer had with a crew member who encouraged them to bring something back if they didn't like it.

I imagine this works out well for them: when you go back, you will probably find something else to buy!

Running a business on the assumption that customers will share your morals and ethics is a recipe for failure

It depends on the retailer. Nordstrom's encourages this kind of behavior -- salespeople there make sales by telling the customer they can return stuff if they buy it and find out they don't like it. On the other hand, L.L. Bean has recently added restrictions to their return policy because it was being abused.

While I know that there is abuse of the return option, and probably quite a lot, an immediate return is more likely to be because the item has simply been checked for fit and finish. Someone planning to wear something for a particular event before returning it is likely to have it delivered a few days in advance.

I will not order items like footwear for mail delivery if I cannot return items that do not fit, and it is up to the retailer whether they want to trade with me on that basis.

> It’s meant to be an exception during the sales process (not a normal condition) and offered as a courtesy, not a defacto right.

It is a defacto right in many situations in many countries. In the UK for example, if a good is sold sight unseen via "distance selling" (mail/phone/online etc), sale of goods legislation requires you to provide a refund for any reason whatsoever if the item is returned within 14 days.

In addition to all of the previous answers, which are all great, in the case of clothing they are often charging $50-100+ for what amounts to $5 in material and labor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com