Hacker News Reader

Comment by inopinatus | Hacker News Reader

Let's take a moment to look at how disingenuous this article is:

* Out of twelve returned trackers, one of them went to landfill. The article focuses on that item and does not itemise the fate of the others.

* Adding a tracking device to a returned new product is tantamount to damage. If such a device is detected during returns processing, anyone with half a brain should immediately presume a malicious actor and have the item very carefully and securely assessed for disposal.

* Did not verify that the tracking device remained within the bag.

* "30-40 percent of online purchases are returned" what absolute hoopsla. I've worked in online commerce and this is off by an order of magnitude. A very few segments (e.g. shoes) may approach such return rates.

This crap is why journalism is in such disrepute.

View on HN

I completely agree that their methodology is not robust.

But Amazon also refused to state what fraction of items go to landfill, despite making subjective claims that it's "on occasion" and the "vast majority" are liquidated or resold. If that was true, Amazon would have the data to back it up and would only benefit them to say so.

If we want to know the actual number of items that go to landfill, we don't need to send GPS trackers everywhere, we can just mandate Amazon (and all other companies) to report on that. It's not like they don't have the data.

That is a very reasonable public policy idea. Let's add to that list of failures: the article has no discussion of reasonable policy ideas (despite quoting researchers whose life's work is in producing them).

NB: don't assume that there's no downside to any given retailer unilaterally disclosing their return rates, because returns are a measurable factor in marginal cost & revenue assessment and partially describe both the elasticity of demand and overall customer sentiment. Every retailer of scale would be interested in obtaining the return statistics (especially segmented) of their competitors; and, as the tone of the article illustrates, there are any number of hacks poised to scribble out mendacious venom on the basis of such data, so no corporate PR lackey worth their communications degree will willingly start that conversation.

In fairness, they outsource and sell returns by the pound. It’s a big business - they have no idea what happens to it.

> If that was true, Amazon would have the data to back it up

Absolutely.

> and would only benefit them to say so.

Not nearly as obvious. It might have some PR benefits (this week, until later when public opinion shifts), but it also provides information about their business that they may prefer to not share (off the top of my head, it probably leaks something about defect rates and their quality controls).

> but it also provides information about their business that they may prefer to not share

On the other hand, it's probably not a good idea to be kept in the dark regarding how major sectors of the economy function, with only the word of corporate PR departments to go on that everything is fine.

People may use this knowledge to defraud Amazon. For example, if it is clear that Amazon doesn't actually check the returns but sends them to the landfill, then an unscrupulous buyer may return a brick and keep the product for free.

People are very clever in figuring out ways to defraud companies, so if I was Amazon I'd be skeptical about giving out information about internal processes without a very good reason to.

> If that was true, Amazon would have the data to back it up and would only benefit them to say so.

I expect Amazon likely outsources a lot of returns handling, so they may not have that data.

They do, even if it was outsourced. Which it isn't, at least in Europe last time I talked tpo people. Liquidators, companies buying returns graded as unsellable, are used a lot so. Whatever they do with the stuff buy wholesale from Aamzon, and others, isn#t necessarily Amazon's or anyone else problem, if you ask me.

Amazon does have all the data, downto the individual returns, about the processing, decission, reason codes and final fate (sodl as new, warehouse deal, sold as used or liquidated, donated,...). They also have every reason to not share that data publicly.

I use amazon India, sometimes I receive broken stuff and I repair it on my own and ask Amazon India if they are willing to refund the part of the sale price.

Recently I had received a dented cooktop and since it was functional and my family isn't too much interested in aesthetics, Amazon offered 30% refund to keep it.

I think I am doing my part to prevent these products from ending up in landfill.

Amazon also honours refund and return request, but not all time I request it.

It's still better than offline shop experience where I've to deal with a real person making weird faces which I find hard to interpret.

I don't disagree with your assertion that the article is disingenuous. However,

> "30-40 percent of online purchases are returned" what absolute hoopsla. I've worked in online commerce and this is off by an order of magnitude. A very few segments (e.g. shoes) may approach such return rates.

In the online retail world, a 30-40% return rate is common for apparel (clothes), shoes and accessory purchases. Certain categories, such as occasion (wedding, party, etc) could be significantly higher than 40%.

Source: I was an executive at a Nordstrom subsidiary for many years.

You're supporting his point: apparel is one of the segments where such return rate is plausible, but it is completely off the mark for general merchandise.

Fair enough. But it sounds like you're arguing that it's ok to waste because it's not in all the segments mentioned?

I'm missing the larger critique. Are you ok with this waste?

I guess sometimes it seems to me like the HN community nitpicks over tiny details and fails to take part in the larger systemic critiques.

If you read my comment again, you’ll see that there is absolutely nothing there about whether “waste is ok”.

Since I started this by inadvertently writing the most upvoted comment, I'd like to put on the record that I'm against returns waste (and it boggles my mind to imagine anyone, or at least anyone with a soul, being for it), but I'm also against sensationalised tabloid journalism because I don't believe it's a constructive contribution to the discussion of how we get to a more sustainable supply-return chain.

On the contrary it tends to cause exactly those firms who'd be most intrinsically part of the solution (and whose employees most certainly would love to say "we're part of the solution", because they are not the sociopaths some would paint them as) to get their backs against the wall, since anyone even participating in the discussion makes themselves primarily a target for invective.

To build on your last point, if your return rate is above ~10% - 15% depending on category (as a merchant), you actually get penalized by Amazon to the point where they will de-list your product. Return rate targets vary by category, but in general most merchants want them to be under 5%.

I agree their methodology is far from rigorous, although I still found it an interesting read.

I've seen a lot of people on HN complain after receiving counterfeit items or "new" goods that were obviously someone else's returns. I wonder what the Venn diagram would look like of those individuals and the ones who are outraged now.

It happened to me many times. So much so that I quit amazon and went to brick and mortar instead (who will often price match amazon anyway)

Amazon is welcome to sell these returns instead of throwing them away that’s not the issue. The problem was that they sell something as new when it’s been opened and used. I think no one would have an issue with it if the returned items were sold as such for a discount.

This crap is why journalism is in such disrepute.

And this is from the Canadian Broadcasting Company - Canada's gov't funded TV/radio/print news service, not some fly by night organization focused on spitting out content to maximize ad impressions.

Doesn't give you much hope for quality reporting if they can't get it right.

The CBC is not considered to be particularly reputable even within Canada, which is extremely irritating given that our tax dollars are paying for it.

Marketplace is sensationalized garbage. Watch one of their videos on YouTube to see what I mean. It's all spin, trying to make people outraged.

CBC is definitely a mixed bag. Marketplace is amongst their worst.

Canadian tax dollars at work... They got sued a few years back for some ridiculous food allegations in a similar vein too.

Are you talking about when they said Subway chicken was only 50% chicken? Subway sued, lost, and had to pay legal fees. Pretty happy with that use of my taxes tbh.

Yea the CBC takes its cue from left wing American media which it poorly imitates

Reply on news.ycombinator.com