Hacker News Reader

Comment by iends | Hacker News Reader

As an aside that I'm probably going to get down voted for...

I've always seen store returns as an ethical issue. If at the time of purchase I have full information about the product, I see it as unethical to change my mind a few days latter simply because of buyers remorse. One of the examples given in the article mentions the author returned a playstation after playing it for a few days. I don't see how this is a reasonable return, and it cost the store money all because the buyer was fickle.

The main story from the article is a bit different, as the user bought the case expecting X and got Y. I have no problem with returns of this nature. A reasonably informed consumer would not expect there to be two products from the same company, with the same name just only sold at different locations.

I'd probably call up AMEX and cancel the charge.

View on HN

Store returns are not an ethical issue, but a result of market forces. The more lenient a store is with its return policy, the happier its customers will be, and the more money they'll be inclined to spend there.

For example, managers often have the discretion to extend the duration of stated policies; in my experience, they're happy to do so if it'll please the customer. This costs the stores some money, but the people in charge keep the policies in place, so they must have judged them a net win to their business. I'm happy to take advantage of the convenience it offers me; in fact, I'm more likely to shop at a store with a lax return policy, and likely to buy more, as I know I can return it later if I don't like it. Presumably, it's this tradeoff that the store owners are after.

I understand why it makes good business sense for a company to offer a good return policy, but that is different from me as a consumer buying things on impulse and then returning them a few days later when I regret my decisions.

So, you view this as a bad habit, rather than an ethical dilemma.

No, I see it as unethical decision making.

What about it, exactly, is unethical? What about the action, if the store owner is fine with it, makes it intrinsically wrong?

> If at the time of purchase I have full information about the product

There's the problem. You assume full information is available up-front. In my opinion, a return policy is actually the method by which the consumer obtains full information.

Say I'm buying a TV. The interwebs will have all of the numerical information, and the showroom will have a demo playing on it, but that doesn't reflect the lighting conditions of my own home. Maybe there's an inaudible high-pitch noise that freaks out my cat. Maybe it gives me headaches after 4 hours, where my current TV doesn't do that until 6 hours.

These are all examples of information that is relevant to my purchase decision, which is not available at purchase time. Thus, your hypothesis of full information is invalid. The easiest way to obtain this information, is through a trial period of some sort. A return policy is morally equivalent to a trial period, optimized for the most common use-case.

I've never returned something because of buyers remorse (I don't purchase something unless I've thought about it for a very long time, and have the money for it) but I will return items when they are broken.

For example, Costco's return policy is absolutely amazing. I purchased an air bed from them and after sleeping on it (ahh, being a college kid) for 7 months one of the ribs holding the form together broke and it had this weird bubble in it. I brought it back to Costco, and replaced it with another one.

I don't abuse it, but I don't think that a product should have to be replaced at 7 months in. I've done the same thing with a foam mattress I bought from Costco, after sleeping on it for 2 years the manufacturer refused to replace it even-though there was a huge "dent" in the middle so that sleeping on the bed meant you rolled into the middle automatically (made it uncomfortable to sleep with my girlfriend, now fiancée). Brought it back and we bought a mattress with springs.

The amount of money I've spent at Costco far outweighs the cost of them doing the replacement for me, and the cost for dealing with the manufacturer.

Just as an aside (and you probably already know this) - Any Air bed that cost you less than $300 has an average lifespan of approx. six months, and 95% of them will experience some structural failures (such as a rib separating) within 18 months of continuous use. So, yes, that is an amazing return policy. :-)

Yeah, I was aware of them having terrible lifespan, one of the reasons why I purchased from Costco in the first place, but Aerobed always advertises their beds as being quality and staying that way for a long time so I was surprised that it only last about that long.

As the owner of five sub $250 Aerobed's (though I've never had the balls to return them after seven months of use. :-) -I can say they are somewhat higher quality than your typical $100-$200 Airbed, they are still meant for "occasional" use - I.E. pull them out for guests 2-3 night 3-4 times/year. Probably good for five years. If you get seven months out of a $150 Aerobed, then you are about average. I've had _one_ last 14 months, the rest went around 7-9 months.

If you want to use an AirBed continuously, be prepared to plunk a minimum of $700, and upwards of $5,000 for a top of the line Comfortaire.

I worked at a CompUSA when I was in college, and I cannot disagree with you more. The specifications or other information available at retail just doesn't convey enough information to the customer in many cases.

People seem fickle sometimes, but why should they have to drop lots of money to take home a product that doesnt work for them? Example: back in the 90's, Packard Bell shipped a monitor with this massive bezel which didn't fit in most "computer furniture" of the era. No measurements were on the box. Result? 20% return rate. Packard Bell "fixed" this problem by offering a rebate that required you to remove stickers necessary for return.

The average US household makes less that $50k/year. Gadgets aren't cheap -- return policies give consumers the confidence to take a risk on a new product.

I can't really comment on the specific example you provided because I've not read anything about it. The example you describe doesn't sound like buyers remorse.

However, I do think consumers should take the time to educate themselves about the products they buy.

I guess I'm a fickle customer. I buy things when I'm not sure if I want them (especially clothes and shoes) but I have no trouble taking them back to the store and saying I changed my mind. I feel I'm taking a risk and if it works out the store benefits from it. I end up spending a lot in stores that follow this and avoid others that have given me hassle. I spend a lot on amazon for the same reason.

EDIT - I'd like to add there is very little rational or reasonable going on in the head of most shoppers!

This is true of the USA. Other jurisdications have different consumer protection laws. In the UK store returns are pretty much an absolute right under this sort of circumstance -- goods sold must be "fit for purpose" and a retailer who won't accept a return may be breaking the law. (This case is complicated by it being a kiosk and providing insufficient information, but even so ...)

Same with Australia. Our consumer protection law also has fit for purpose guarantees, you can ge a full refund of you have been misled about the product. Also, there is no such thing as a 12 month warranty - if the product (for example n iPhone) is reasonably expected to last for 2 years, then you get that product for two years with warranty.

>As an aside that I'm probably going to get down voted for...

I really hope this doesn't become a common thing to say here.

It's mentioned in the guidelines as something not to do: Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you.

I didn't know, won't happen again.

I'm with you to an extent - in that if I've thought the purchase over, and made the purchase in sound mind and then just decided I don't fancy it any more, it's bad form to return the product.

On the other hand, I like liberal return laws because we're getting increasingly good at manipulating people with marketing. Giving people the opportunity to realise that the product doesn't make them feel as amazing as the marketing implied is probably useful.

The guilt that makes you resist buyers remorse and keep products you don't want is profit for the sellers. Frivolous returns are already part of their forecast. You might as well return it. But beware: if you tend toward guilt, you'll eventually make even more purchases to ensure the seller profits from you in the end.

If you feel any guilt or have buyers remorse about a purchase you have made, there is a lesson to be learned. You shouldn't be buying frivolous items on impulse. As the cost of something increases, you should spend proportionally more time researching and thinking about if its really more valuable than the cash you are about to exchange it for.

People are simply looking for a quick fix rather than addressing the root problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com