Hacker News Reader

Comment by azrael49 | Hacker News Reader

In the majority of cases, retailers trash their products (sometimes after physically destroying them) that go unsold. Even for used items, most people are too lazy to donate even things in perfect condition

View on HN

Yup. Canadian Tire does this. They have a fence around their returned product smashing area. Any product returned that's not resellable is smashed and thrown away. And their criteria for what's resellable is fairly strict. Most returns just end up smashed. Employees aren't allowed to take or even purchase at a discounted rate or anything. It's just obliterated and trashed. I know someone who used to work there. Employees had ways of taking things(however you feel about it...i understand it's to stop scamming and such but I still feel like it's better than just trashing perfectly good things.). But they still destroyed hundreds of perfectly good stuff while they worked there.

I gotta admit the grocery store I worked at back in the day was pretty good. They left their old produce for people with animals to take. Employees could take expired stuff that was still good but going to be thrown because it was past the date.

I dunno I don't like wasting things that are good. There's always a better solution than just throwing things away and destroying them.

Problem with unsold stuff is that people don't want it at any price. Even poor people. Before stuff is unsold, it goes on sale for 50% off, or maybe 75% or more. Poorer people can afford it at those lower price points.

Not always true. Some companies will rather destroy product rather than undercut themselves (it's a conscious strategy, especially for luxury items).

https://theoutline.com/post/2602/clothing-companies-are-tras...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/01/07/why_hm_destr...

I guess that's why some of those startups that tried to create an "exclusive" outlet prospered (Gilt Groupe, Vente Privee).

in my country, you need things destroyed and have a paper confirming that or there may be negative tax implications. it's stupid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com